Renato spent 15 years as Senior Cabin Crew in the Middle East and has a lifelong passion for aviation history. He has also led the largest research project on Alberto Santos-Dumont and was condecorated by the Brazilian Air Force for efforts in aviation preservation.    

Renato is now working to shape the future of private aviation, connecting today’s innovators with tomorrow’s history.   

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

Today, the great gatherings of aviation and aerospace such as Farnborough in England, Le Bourget in France, Dubai, Singapore and Oshkosh in the United States, are stages where the latest aircraft, engines and technologies are unveiled to the world. These fairs feel inseparable from the roar of runways and the spectacle of flying displays. Yet the birthplace of this tradition was not an airport at all. The roots of every air show and aerospace exhibition lie beneath the monumental glass vaults of Paris’s Grand Palais, a building raised for art and industry at the dawn of the 20^th century and still standing as a silent witness to the birth of global aeronautics. 

At the beginning of that century, the dream of leaving the ground had already leapt from fantasy into reality. Balloons had carried explorers aloft for more than a hundred years, dirigibles were beginning to stretch their range, and heavier-than-air machines had finally proven themselves capable of sustained, controlled flight. What was missing was a stage to display these marvels, a place where inventors, pilots, industrialists and the curious public could gather under one roof. Paris offered the stage, and the Grand Palais became the theater. 

The first aeronautical exhibition of 1908 

The building itself had been created for the Exposition Universelle of 1900. Just a few years later, it was nearly condemned to demolition; its vast iron skeleton and glass roof dismissed as an extravagant relic of the past. But instead of vanishing, it was given a new purpose. In December 1908, the Grand Palais hosted the very first aeronautical exhibition in history. What had once been built to honor the arts and industry of the 19^th century suddenly became the cathedral of the 20th, the house of flight. 

The idea came from Robert Esnault-Pelterie, the brilliant inventor of the joystick and one of the earliest monoplane designers, together with André Granet, architect and nephew of Gustave Eiffel. They had recently founded the Association des Industriels de l’Aéronautique and were determined to give French aviation a stage worthy of its achievements. Their opportunity came when the Grand Palais hosted the Paris Automobile Salon. In one corner, alongside cars, they installed a new wonder: flying machines. 

Pioneers under glass 

Visitors who entered the palace in December 1908 were greeted by Clément Ader’s Avion, defiantly placed opposite the entrance as a reminder of France’s early claim to controlled flight. Just beyond stood Henri Farman’s Voisin biplane, fresh from its kilometer record the previous winter. Louis Blériot presented three machines, the Blériot VIII, IX and X, while Esnault-Pelterie showed his elegant steel-tube monoplane and its engine. Astra displayed the Wright brothers’ biplane, proof that the Americans too had mastered the air. The Breguet brothers unveiled their experimental gyroplane, a forerunner of the helicopter. And among these giants of wood and canvas appeared the Demoiselle, designed by Alberto Santos-Dumont but exhibited by the industrialist Clément-Bayard, who had begun to manufacture and promote it. It was a tiny dragonfly of an aircraft, hinting at the possibility of a personal flight. Suspended nearby were models and gondolas of dirigibles from Astra, Zodiac and Clément-Bayard, reminders that lighter-than-air craft still held pride in place. 

The section that most astonished visitors, however, was the gallery of engines. For the first time, the public could touch the beating hearts of flight: the Antoinette V8 and V16, finely engineered; the Anzani radial, soon to carry Blériot across the English Channel; Renault’s novel air-cooled engines; and the revolutionary Gnome rotary, the first lightweight engine to run reliably. Here, perhaps more than in the display of fragile aircraft, the transformation of aviation from curiosity into industry could be felt. 

Those present in 1908 formed a pantheon: Clément Ader, Alberto Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Louis Blériot, Robert Esnault-Pelterie, Gabriel Voisin, Louis and Jacques Breguet, Léon Levavasseur, Maurice Mallet, Maurice Clément-Bayard and André Granet. With them, and under the Grand Palais’s great dome, aviation became not just an invention but a movement, a community, and a market. 

The experiment quickly became a tradition. In 1909, the Grand Palais hosted the first international exhibition devoted exclusively to aviation. More than 380 exhibitors filled its glass halls, and 100,000 visitors streamed through the doors. Blériot’s Type XI, which had crossed the Channel only weeks before, was the centerpiece. Farman’s biplane stood beside it, fresh from its world endurance record, and the Wright biplane of the Comte de Lambert would soon after circle the Eiffel Tower. For the first time, sections were dedicated to meteorology, physiology of flight and aerial photography, signs that aviation was already reaching beyond sport into science and society. 

Innovation and aviation fever 

The years that followed were a whirlwind. In 1910, the crowd marveled at Henri Coandă’s experimental jet biplane and Henri Fabre’s hydro-aeroplane, the first seaplane. By 1911, aircraft were being shown armed, and Blériot presented a “Berline” designed for passenger transport across the Channel. Even Louis Vuitton, together with his brother, presented their own flying designs, proof that the fascination with flight extended far beyond engineers and pilots to touch fashion houses and industrial dynasties alike. In those years, aviation fever gripped Paris so completely that everyone with imagination, resources or ambition sought to be part of it. 

In 1912, war’s shadow grew long. Planes fitted with machine guns and bomb racks were openly displayed, and competitions tested bombing accuracy. In 1913, on the eve of the Great War, the Grand Palais was filled with 34 aircraft and nearly a hundred engines. The optimism of 1908 had turned into preparation for conflict. 

Postwar rebirth and commercial promise 

When the salons resumed in 1919, the world changed. The palace now displayed bombers reimagined as airliners, the Farman Goliath, Blériot Mammouth and Caudron C-23. More than 270,000 visitors came, drawn by the promise of commercial air travel. By 1921, the exhibition was officially called the Salon de l’Aéronautique, and the future was on display in René Tampier’s folding-wing car-plane and the Pescara helicopter with contra-rotating blades. Dioramas mapped out planned air routes across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, reflecting France’s ambition to dominate global skies. In 1922 and 1923, more than 250,000 visitors admired 42 aircraft and the mighty Napier CUB engine, a 1,000-horsepower marvel that symbolized the new scale of aviation. 

From that modest corner display in 1908 to the massive postwar shows of the 1920s, the Grand Palais had become more than an exhibition hall. It was the nest where modern aviation hatched. Beneath its glass vaults, fragile wood-and-fabric contraptions gave way to metal monoplanes; sport became industry, industry became strategy, and strategy turned into commerce. The Grand Palais was not simply saved from demolition by an exhibition. It became the birthplace of global aeronautics, the nest of evolution that would guide the world for the next centuries. 

Regrettably, this has not always been the case. It has taken years of development of specialist systems to reach this point. Notably, it also took one aircraft accident in particular to teach the airline industry about the dangers of microbursts and windshear and start a process to develop the technologies to deal with them more effectively.

Delta Air Lines Flight 191, a Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, crashed following a windshear encounter while on approach to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFW) in Texas on August 2, 1985, killing 134 occupants of the aircraft and one person on the ground, while just 29 people survived the accident.

AeroTime looks at the events surrounding this tragic accident and investigates how modern-day technologies might have prevented such a disaster from occurring.

Microbursts and windshear – what are they?

A microburst is a weather phenomenon that can pose a significant danger to aircraft during take-off and landing, as well as impact on aviation safety in general. A microburst is a sudden, powerful downdraft of air that occurs when a thunderstorm’s updraft reaches its maximum intensity and collapses. As the downdraft hits the ground, it spreads out in every direction, creating a burst of wind that can be incredibly strong and consequently making it difficult for aircraft to be handled with sufficient control.

Wet microbursts, such as that experienced by Delta Flight 191, occur when rain falls through a dry layer of air, causing the rain to evaporate rapidly and cool the air. This cooling effect makes the air denser, and as a result, it sinks rapidly towards the ground, creating a strong downdraft. The strength of the downdraft can be significant, reaching speeds of up to 150 mph. 

The temperature and humidity of the air influence the formation of wet microbursts. For wet microbursts to form, the air needs to be dry at lower altitudes, and there must be a moist layer of air above it. Wet microbursts are most common in areas with low humidity, such as deserts.

Dry microbursts occur when there is no rain, and a column of sinking air that evaporation has cooled creates the downdraft. This type of microburst is typically more challenging to detect because there are no visible signs of precipitation. The sinking air creates a strong downdraft that can be as powerful as a wet microburst, reaching speeds up to 100 mph.

Dry microbursts are most common in areas with high humidity, where the evaporative cooling effect is more pronounced. They can be particularly dangerous because they are more difficult to detect and predict than wet microbursts. 

Windshear, on the other hand, is a rapid, often dangerous, change in wind speed or direction over a short distance, significantly impacting an aircraft’s lift, airspeed, and performance, especially during low-altitude operations like take-off and landing. Nowadays, pilots use weather reports, ground-based detection systems, on-board monitoring, and crew reports to detect wind shear and take immediate action, such as increasing thrust and pitching up, to maintain control and avoid accidents 

Windshear directly affects an aircraft’s indicated airspeed, which determines the lift generated over the wings. The danger is greatest near the ground during take-off and landing, as an aircraft’s safety margins for aerodynamic stalls are much smaller at these times, with the low altitudes involved in these phases. Windshear can lead to a sudden loss of airspeed, altitude, and control, which requires immediate and correct pilot action. 

The background to Delta Air Lines Flight 191

Flight DL191 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight between Fort Lauderdale Airport in Florida (FLL) and Los Angeles, California (LAX), with an intermediate stop at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) in Texas. The flight on August 2, 1985, was being operated by a six-year-old Lockheed Tristar aircraft with registration N726DL. The flight that day had 163 people on board, including 152 passengers, three flight crew, and eight cabin crew.  

The aircraft departed Fort Lauderdale on a normal instrument flight plan at 15:10 local time. The forecast for Dallas contained in the flight crew’s dispatch documents stated that there was a possibility of widely scattered rain showers and thunderstorms around the time of the flight’s arrival in the area later that afternoon, although the risk of these was due to decrease into the evening.

A normal scheduled flight – initially 

According to Aviation Safety Network, the flight was uneventful until passing over New Orleans, Louisiana. A line of weather along the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast had intensified. Because of this, the crew of Flight 191 decided to alter their route of flight to the more northerly Blue Ridge arrival route into Dallas to avoid the developing weather to the south.

This change necessitated the flight to enter a 10 to 15-minute holding pattern at the Texarkana beacon north of Dallas to allow for approach sequencing at the airport itself.

At 17:35 local time, the flight crew received the latest weather broadcast for Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, which advised of clouds at 6,000ft. It also advised of good visibility, high temperatures (101 degrees Fahrenheit), and calm winds at the airfield.

Upon receipt of this information, flight 191 was subsequently cleared by Dallas area controllers (ATC) to head to the Blue Ridge beacon and begin its descent. At 17:43, air traffic control cleared flight 191 to descend to 10,000 feet and turn onto a heading of 250 degrees to clear of incoming weather systems, including possible thunderstorm activity.

The captain replied that he was looking at a “pretty good-sized” weather cell and advised that he would rather not go through it and would prefer to deviate around it. The controller acknowledged this request and issued an alternative heading for Flight 191 to follow towards Dallas Airport.

The weather deteriorates

At 17:46, ATC cleared Flight 191 direct to Blue Ridge and to descend to 9,000 feet. The crew of flight 191 acknowledged receipt of the clearance. At 17:48, the captain told the first officer (who was flying the aircraft for this leg of the trip), “You’re in good shape. I am glad we did not have to go through that mess. I thought for sure he was going to send us through it.” Three minutes later, the flight engineer said, “Looks like it’s raining over Fort Worth.”

At 17:51, ATC instructed flight 191 to contact DFW Airport Approach Control. At 17:56, the regional approach controller transmitted an all-aircraft message, which was received by Flight 191. The message stated, “Attention, all aircraft listening… there’s a little rain shower just north of the airport and they’re starting to make ILS approaches”, indicating that the weather was deteriorating at the airport and on the approach to the active runway, 17L. At 17:59, the first officer stated, “We’re gonna get our airplane washed.”

At 18:00, the approach controller asked American Airlines flight 351 (which was two aircraft ahead of flight 191 in the landing sequence) if it was able to see the airport. Flight 351 replied, “As soon as we break out of this rain shower, we will.” The controller then told flight 351 that it was four miles out and cleared for the approach to runway 17L.

At 18:00, the approach controller asked Flight 191 to reduce its airspeed to 170 knots and to turn left to 270 degrees, with Flight 191 then acknowledging receipt of the clearance. Flight 191 had been sequenced behind a Learjet 25 for landing on runway 17L. At 18:02, the approach controller told Flight 191 that it was six miles from the outer marker and stated, “Cleared for ILS one seven left approach.” The flight acknowledged receipt of the transmission.

The approach phase of flight 191

At 18:03:03, the approach controller requested Flight 191 to reduce its speed to 160 knots, to which the captain replied, “Be glad to.” The controller followed this request up a few seconds later with, “And we’re getting some variable winds out there due to a shower out there, north end of DFW.” This transmission was received by Flight 191

At 18:03, the approach controller requested Flight 191 to slow to 150 knots and to contact the Dallas tower controller for landing clearance. At 18:03:58, the captain, after switching to the tower’s radio frequency, stated, “Tower, Delta one ninety one heavy, out here in the rain, feels good.”

The tower cleared the flight to land and relayed the latest wind speed at the airport. At 18:04:07, the first officer called for the before-landing check. The flight crew confirmed that the landing gear was down and that the flaps were extended to their landing position.

On final approach into Dallas

Just three miles (4.8 km) ahead of Flight 191, the Learjet was making its final approach to runway 17L. While on final approach, the Learjet flew through the storm north of the airport and encountered what was later described as “light to moderate turbulence.” The Learjet encountered heavy rain and lost all forward visibility but was able to continue its approach and land safely.

When later asked why he did not report weather conditions to the tower, the Learjet’s captain testified that he had nothing to report because “the only thing that we encountered was the heavy rain.”

At 18:04, the first officer exclaimed to his colleagues that there was “lightning coming out of that one, right ahead of us.” Flight 191 continued descending along the final approach course.

At 18:05:05, the captain called out “1,000 feet.” At 18:05:19, the captain cautioned the first officer to watch his indicated airspeed, and a sound identified as heavy rain began to strike the aircraft. The captain then warned the first officer, “You’re gonna lose it all of a sudden, there it is.” The captain stated, “Push it up, push it way up.”

At 18:05:29, the sound of engines at high power was heard on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), and the captain said, “That’s it.” From this point, the aircraft began a descent from which it never recovered. The plane’s angle of attack was over 30° and began to vary wildly over the next few seconds.  The pitch angle began to sink, and the aircraft started descending below the glideslope at this point.

At 18:05:44, the aircraft’s Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) enunciated a “Whoop whoop – pull up” alert, and the captain commanded “TOGA” – an industry-recognised command to apply full engine power and abort the landing attempt. The CVR recording suddenly ended at 18:05:58.

The impact and subsequent fire

Witnesses on the nearby State Highway 114 north of the airport saw Flight 191 emerge from the rain about one mile from the end of runway 17L. The airplane touched down heavily in a field short of the runway and briefly became airborne again before striking a car in the westbound lane of State Highway 114. The driver was killed instantly.

After the plane struck the car and a light pole on the highway, other witnesses saw fire on the left side of the airplane in the vicinity of the wing root. The witnesses generally agreed that the airplane struck the ground in a left-wing-low attitude, and that the fuselage rotated counterclockwise and broke into several sections after the left wing and cockpit area struck a water tank on the airport site.

A large explosion obscured the witnesses’ view before the aircraft’s tail section emerged from the fireball, skidding backwards. The tail section finally came to rest on its left side with the empennage pointing south and was subsequently blown to an upright position by wind gusts.

The immediate aftermath of the crash

With the aircraft shattered into several pieces and most of the wreckage on fire due to the egress of fuel that had leaked and ignited, the airport fire and emergency units were en route to the accident site within one minute of the crash. Forty-five seconds after first being alerted, three fire trucks from the airport’s fire station arrived at the crash and began fighting the fire.

Additional units from fire stations arrived within five minutes, and despite high wind gusts and heavy rain, the fire was mostly under control within ten minutes after the alert was sounded.

The investigation’s findings

In all, 134 passengers and crew on board the airplane, and the driver of the car, which was struck by the airplane, were killed in the accident. Meanwhile, 27 people on board the airplane and a single rescue worker at the accident site were injured. Miraculously, two passengers on the airplane were uninjured.

A lengthy investigation was carried out by the National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB), which eventually published its report of findings on the loss of Flight 191 a year after the accident, in August 1986.

In the report, the NTSB concluded that the probable cause of the accident was caused by the flight crew’s decision to initiate and continue the approach into a cumulonimbus cloud, which they observed to contain visible lightning. Additionally, there was a general lack of specific guidelines, procedures, and training provided by Delta to its crews for avoiding and escaping from low-level windshear events, paired with a lack of definitive, real-time windshear hazard information on the day of the accident itself.

To quote the report, “This resulted in the aircraft’s encounter at low altitude with a microburst-induced, severe windshear from a rapidly developing thunderstorm located on the final approach course.”

Further research into windshear and microbursts

Following the conclusion of the investigation, researchers at NASA’s Langley Research Center modified a Boeing 737-100 testbed to fly a series of trials featuring a newly developed Doppler weather radar system. The airborne windshear detection and alerting system developed by NASA in the aftermath of Delta flight 191 was later installed in all commercial airliners in the US after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandated that all such aircraft must have on-board wind shear-detection systems installed.

To avoid the dangers of microbursts and other extreme weather events, pilots are now trained to rely on weather radar and visual cues to detect potential areas of turbulence and avoid flying through them. Additionally, pilots are trained to avoid areas with thunderstorms and look for visual cues such as cumulonimbus clouds and lightning that may indicate the presence of microbursts. 

Thanks to the work by NASA in the 1980s, advanced weather radar systems and onboard weather monitoring technologies now help pilots detect potential microbursts. Despite these aids, should they find themselves in a microburst situation, pilots are trained to react by increasing engine power, adjusting their flight path, and taking other evasive maneuvers to avoid the strong downdrafts involved. Pilots need to receive proper training on microbursts to ensure they can react appropriately and safely in such a situation. 

If a microburst is encountered during the landing phase, pilots are trained to understand that the safest procedure is to immediately abort the landing by performing a missed approach or “go-around”, as was attempted by the crew of Delta Flight 191, albeit too late.

What were the plans for HOTOL?

HOTOL was designed as a reusable winged launch vehicle. The aircraft would take off under its own power from a conventional runway and land back as an unpowered glider once its mission was completed. Designed to be an aerial launch platform for satellites, HOTOL was supposed to be cheaper to build and more efficient to operate (by around 20%) than its nearest competitor, the US-built Northrop Space Shuttle

The uncrewed craft was intended to have the ability to put a payload of around seven to eight tonnes (15,450lbs to 17,650lbs) into orbit at around 187 miles (300 km) altitude. HOTOL was designed to take off from a runway mounted on the back of a large rocket-boosted trolley that would help get the craft up to a speed where it could take off using conventional lift generated by the wings.   

The engine was intended to switch from jet propulsion to pure rocket propulsion at 16-20 miles (26–32 km) altitude, by which time the craft would be travelling at Mach five to seven. After reaching low-earth orbit, HOTOL was then intended to re-enter the atmosphere and glide down to land like a conventional airplane. Payload restrictions meant that only one payload would be carried at a time.

The proposed propellant for HOTOL’s engine technically consisted of a combination of liquid hydrogen mixed with liquid oxygen. The powerplant itself was designed to utilize a new method of dramatically reducing the amount of oxidizer needed to be carried on board by utilizing atmospheric oxygen as the spacecraft climbed through the lower atmosphere after take-off.

Since the oxidizer typically represents the majority of the take-off weight of a space vehicle rocket, HOTOL was designed to be considerably smaller than normal pure-rocket designs, roughly the size of a medium-haul airliner such as a Boeing 737.

Dimensions and capabilities

HOTOL was designed to have an overall length of 62 metres (203ft), a height of 12.8 metres (42ft), a fuselage width of 5.7 meters (18.8ft), and a wingspan of 19.7meters (64.6 ft). The final design had a take-off mass of 275 tonnes (606,000lbs). Approximately 82% of the total weight would be propellant, with the vehicle structure being a further 16%. This left just 2% for payload.

HOTOL featured a ‘delta’ wing design that British Aerospace had derived from Concorde. The unique wing design was adopted to provide relatively low wing loading, resulting in lower re-entry temperatures. Ahead of its time, and built entirely out of carbon composite materials, the design of HOTOL meant that there was no need for thermal insulation tiles such as those of the underside of the US Space Shuttle.  

Almost the entire forward fuselage, ahead of the payload bay, comprised a single hydrogen tank, with no need for a cockpit as the vehicle was to be unmanned. Additionally, unlike its US competitor, HOTOL would feature a vertical fin, just aft of the nose, for lateral stability. However, this was later supplemented by a larger vertical rear stabilizer for enhanced lateral control.  

While HOTOL was designed to conduct fully automated uncrewed flights, it had been intended at a later stage to potentially re-introduce a crew.  At an early stage of development, British Aerospace released futuristic images of HOTOL docking with the forthcoming International Space Station. This would have required a crewed operation, as automated systems at the time were not capable of performing such docking manoeuvres.

Early development and concept

The concept behind HOTOL originated from work done by Alan Bond, a British aeronautical engineer who specialized in the field of pre-cooled jet engines. Bond had specifically performed this research with the intention of producing a viable engine to power a reusable space vehicle. In 1982, Europe’s leading satellite manufacturer, British Aerospace, began its own studies to build a new launch system that it could use to launch its own satellite products, hence reducing the reliance on other space programs such as NASA’s Space Shuttle or Europe’s Ariane rocket to carry out the function.

While the two worked independently to begin with, they eventually joined with Rolls-Royce (which had been developing its own engine technology) to work on the development of an uncrewed, fully reusable SSTO winged spaceplane that could be used as a suitable satellite launch vehicle.

Given the extensive projected costs of such a program (estimated at the time as £4 billion / $5.4 billion),  British Aerospace began to market the concept to other European nations in the hope of further collaboration and cost sharing. By 1984, to promote the program, British Aerospace built and displayed a large-scale mock-up of HOTOL to market the project to other nations, which toured around Europe.

However, European interest was initially hard to find. It was reported by the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in late 1984 that West Germany might be interested in participating in HOTOL. However, another key ally that it was hoped would be involved, France, was reticent about the project and was not interested in participating. The French government saw HOTOL as a potential competitor to its own space program (known as ‘Hermes’) and did not have the finances available to be involved in both projects simultaneously.

Additionally, despite the tentative interest of West Germany, the general feeling was that without widespread European support and collaboration, there were too many hurdles to overcome, not least the enormous costs involved, for a British company to develop and deliver such a technically advanced and costly space vehicle on its own. These feelings set a tone for the whole HOTOL project; that British Aerospace, along with Rolls-Royce, were very much “on their own” in terms of developing the new space vehicle.

Engine and propellants

For its part in the HOTOL project, Rolls-Royce developed its RB545 engine, which was later given the same ‘Swallow ‘ by its manufacturer. The Swallow was to be an air-breathing rocket engine, with the capability to function as an integrated dual-role powerplant. This meant it would be capable of running on conventional air while operating within the atmosphere, while also operating as a rocket engine when HOTOL had reached low Earth orbit. The engine would have also been capable of powering the spacecraft to hypersonic speeds, reducing overall costs and making the overall project more attractive as a result.

The Swallow engine was designed so that, within the atmosphere, air would be taken in through two vertically mounted intakes. It would then split the airflow and pass the correct amount to the pre-coolers, and the excess to the spill ducts. Hydrogen from the fuel tanks would be passed through two heat exchangers to pre-cool the air before it was passed into a turbojet-type engine, with the heated hydrogen driving a compressor to compress and feed the cooled air into the rocket engine. One there, it would be combusted with hydrogen used to cool the air. The majority of the remaining hot hydrogen was released from the back of the engine.

When it was no longer possible to use the atmosphere for combustion, the RB545 would switch to using on-board liquid oxygen to burn with the hydrogen as a high-efficiency hydrogen/oxygen rocket. Little else is known about the exact design or workings of the Swallow engine, as its entire development program was classified, with all aspects of the project being protected under the UK Official Secrets Act.

Other international involvement

In March 1985, it was reported that Rolls-Royce was in the process of conducting talks for HOTOL engine technology with American propulsion company Rocketdyne, the firm that had helped Charles ‘Chuck’ Yeager break the sound barrier in 1947.

However, according to British government files, neither British Aerospace nor the UK Ministry of Defence was enthusiastic about the prospects of American involvement in the HOTOL space program. Both parties stated at the time that they were expressing reluctance out of a belief that the outcome of such a move could result in the UK becoming a junior member in a project that it had once been the leading developer.

There was also a belief that if Britain chose to pair up with the United States, it would find itself frozen out of work on future European space vehicles, with its involvement with the European Space Agency (ESA) being either reduced or even frozen entirely. However, with development costs already spiralling, Rolls-Royce said that transatlantic cooperation was essential for the project to work. This put Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace at loggerheads with the UK government, and progress on the HOTOL project began to stall as a result.

Widespread Scepticism

In December 1984, a project management consultant, David Andrews, issued an eight-page critique of the HOTOL program. Andrews said that the design was “optimised for the ascent while exposing itself to extended thermal loads during descent due to a low level of drag”. He also claimed that the vehicle offered no capability that was not already available elsewhere on the open market.

Further adding to HOTOL’s problems, in April 1985, the Ministry of Defence’s research and development department stated that HOTOL lacked any real justification, as there was no defence requirement for such vehicles. He also noted that the “engineering problems are considerable” and that it was unlikely to enter service until the 2020s.

In November 1985, the UK’s Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) issued an assessment of HOTOL’s study proposal. The RAE had been brought in to assist Rolls-Royce earlier in 1985 with the costs and complexities of developing the Swallow powerplant. The organisation believed that HOTOL would take up to 20 years to develop, rather than the 12-year timetable that had been envisioned by British Aerospace. The RAE also projected that the project’s estimated costs would rise to around £5 billion ($6.75 billion), representing a 20% increase over initial cost estimates.  

Adding to HOTOL’s growing list of issues, during development, it was found that the comparatively heavy rear-mounted engine moved the centre of mass of the vehicle rearwards. This meant that the vehicle had to be designed to push the centre of drag as far rearward as possible to ensure stability during the entire flight regime.

The redesign of the vehicle to do this required a large mass of hydraulic systems, which cost a significant proportion of the payload, and made the project economics “ambiguous”. In particular, some of the analyses seemed to indicate that similar technology applied to a pure rocket approach would give approximately the same performance at less cost, thus putting the future of HOTOL in real jeopardy.

Despite repeated approaches to the European Space Agency by the British Government for possible collaboration and funding, there was little appetite for HOTOL among senior officials at the ESA. However, the UK government saw participation from ESA as an essential part of the HOTOL project. Without it, said the government at that time, there was little future for the HOTOL project.

Program shutdown

With no tangible involvement from the Americans other than a passing interest, and without ESA involvement at any meaningful level, UK government funding for the HOTOL was finally withdrawn in 1989.  The secrecy that surrounded the Swallow engine had not helped, as the UK government was simply unwilling to share this technology with any other international party, thereby giving a ‘protectionist’ feel towards Rolls-Royce, which other nations deemed to be unfair.

By this point, ESA began investing much more time and money into its own space project, which would later develop into the successful Ariane rocket program. Around the same time, Rolls-Royce decided to end its development of the Swallow engine, deciding that, because of the dwindling potential market for HOTOL, there was almost no chance of a return on the huge capital outlay required.

It was reported that even as the project was being wound down, it still faced massive development issues linked to aerodynamic problems and operational or economic disadvantages. Equally, the US Space Shuttle program was gathering strength in the satellite launching market, with ESA’s Ariane rocket development following closely behind, largely eradicating the need for HOTOL.

What came next for HOTOL?

British Aerospace, desperate not to lose all the money that they had spent to develop HOTOL, quickly produced a cheaper redesigned HOTOL2 concept, which, with a lighter overall weight, would be launched off the back of a modified Antonov An225 transport aircraft, in the same manner that the Russian ‘Buran’ space shuttle was to operate. However, this design was swiftly rejected by the authorities in the UK.

As the HOTOL project officially ended in 1989, Alan Bond, along with two colleagues, formed Reaction Engine Limited (REL) to revive plans for a new low-Earth-orbit spaceplane and develop a new air-breathing engine, known as ‘Sabre’. This new spaceplane design, to be called ‘Skylon’, would build on the technology that Rolls-Royce had already developed, and would refine the aeronautical shortcomings of HOTOL.

REL first published these engine and spacecraft concepts in 1993, while continuing to develop the engine technology. Funded in part with support from ESA, British Aerospace, the UK Space Agency, and others, REL aimed to demonstrate a flight-ready engine operating under simulated flight conditions by 2017 and run demonstration tests by 2020.

However, REL called in the administrators in 2024, ceasing all operations and bringing the hopes of a UK-designed spaceplane and the legacy of HOTOL to a conclusion. No working model of the Sabre engine was ever built.  

The early stages of the war saw the introduction of some of aviation’s most iconic aircraft such as the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane and the Messerschmitt Bf 109. 

While later stages of the conflict saw the US enter the fray with the Lockheed P-38 Lightning followed by the P-51 Mustang. 

The men that learned to harness the speed and power of these incredible aircraft became heroes in their home countries, defending the skies against their nation’s enemies.  

While the British Royal Air Force (RAF), US Air Force (USAF), Red Army Air Forces (VVS), Free French Air Forces (FAFL) and several air forces from the Commonwealth were all celebrated for their valor and their defining contribution to the war effort, some individuals rose to the top and captured the imagination of the world. 

Among these pilots were some of the most highly decorated military personnel who accomplished feats that surpassed all those around them.  

Ivan Kozhedub (Soviet Union) 

Born on June 8, 1920, Soviet Ukrainian fighter pilot Ivan Kozhedub experienced a meteoric rise to fame from humble beginnings in Obrazhivka, a small village in the Sumy region. 

By the end of World War II, he was recognized as having achieved the highest number of German aircraft takedowns among the Allied counties.  

The ‘Flying Ace’ first joined a flying school in the late 1930s and then in 1940 he joined a military flying school of the Russian Red Army where he excelled.  

Due to his incredible talents, he continued to stay at the school as an instructor, but in November 1942 he finally joined a fighter regiment in Moscow.  

In March 1943, 22-year-old Kozhedub had his first taste of active warfare at the controls of the Soviet single-engine fighter, the Lavochkin La-5.  

Hero of the Soviet Union, pilot Ivan Kozhedub near Iași, Romania, 1944 pic.twitter.com/XwcU1vco9c

— USSR Pictures (@PicturesUssr) May 16, 2023

Struck by anti-aircraft fire, Kozhedub waited until July 6, 1943, to claim his first win against a German aircraft.  

Famously when the German jet-powered Messerschmitt Me 262 joined the war effort, it is thought that flying a Lavochkin La-7, Kozhedub became the first Soviet pilot to destroy one of the aircraft.  

By the end of World War II, Kozhedub had flown 330 sorties and destroyed 62 Luftwaffe aircraft in over 100 dog fights – and was never shot down himself.  

He was given a gold star medal of the Hero of the Soviet Union three times (twice in 1944, and once in 1945) during World War II and went on to command the 324^th Fighter Aviation Division during operations in the Korean War.  

Kozhedub died on August 8, 1981, at the age of 71, and was buried at Novodevitchy Cemetery in Moscow, close to the graves of high-ranking Red Army generals and Soviet politicians.  

James Edgar Johnson (UK) 

James Edgar Johnson was known as ‘Johnnie’ to his Royal Air Force pals, but by the end of World War II it would be a nickname even British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was familiar with. 

Johnson was born on March 9, 1915, Barrow-upon-Soar, near Loughborough, while World War I raged across the English Channel in Europe.  

He enjoyed shooting and paid for his first flying lessons using his own savings with big dreams of one day becoming a pilot.  

Before World War II began, Johnson had tried to join the Royal Auxiliary Air Force (RAuxAF) but was rejected. This was followed by further disappointment as he tried desperately to get his foot in the door. 

After a period of time with the Army Reserves he was finally accepted by the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (RAFVR) in July 1939. 

Following his Spitfire training, in September 1940 he flew in an X-Raid patrol in a Spitfire X4330, qualifying for the Battle of Britain clasp but a reoccurring injury with his right arm required surgery if he was going to continue flying.  

At the start of 1941, after so many setbacks, Johnson finally returned to his assigned squadron and could get on with his career as an RAF pilot.  

On June 26, 1941, Johnson secured his first victory destroying a Messerschmitt Bf 109 and took down two more the following month.  

In August 1941, the young pilot got the better of two further Me109s, and then, on September 21, 1941, he destroyed two more. 

As the war progressed, Johnson was given more responsibility and took on leadership roles, including commanding his own squadrons.  

By the end of World War II, his record included 34 individual victories over enemy aircraft, on no less than 700 operational sorties, making him the highest scoring RAF pilot against the Luftwaffe. 

He received the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) from the US and was promoted to Air Vice-Marshal as his last rank. In 1960 he was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE).  

Johnson died on January 30, 2001. 

Richard Bong (US) 

The World War II US pilot Richard ‘Dick’ Bong is perhaps the most famous aviator from the conflict having destroyed 40 enemy aircraft. 

Born in 1920, he was the first of nine siblings and was raised by his parents on a working farm in Superior in northwestern Wisconsin, where his passion for planes first began.  

In 1938, while studying at what was then the State Teachers College in Superior, he joined the newly formed Civilian Pilot Training program which was designed by the government to find the next generation of pilots.  

This was his springboard to successfully join the Army Air Copps cadet program in 1940, and train to become a US fighter pilot in the war.  

Bong initially joined the war effort as a fighter pilot with the 9th Fighter Squadron of the 49th Fighter Group in Australia in 1942.   

According to the Air Force Historical Support Division, later that year he went on to join the USAF 39th Squadron of the 35th Group where he destroyed five Japanese fighter planes before returning to the 9th Squadron in January 1943. 

By the end of 1943, he had continued combat missions in P-38s and increased his enemy aircraft kills to 28 and by September 1944 he had reached 40.   

In January 1945, Bong went home to the US for good as the air force’s most successful pilot of World War II. He had flown over 200 missions for more than 500 combat hours.  

Reflecting his incredible achievements during the war, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars, seven Distinguished Flying Crosses, 15 Air Medals and the Medal of Honor.   

Bong sadly died at the age of 24, on August 6, 1945, while working as a Lockheed test pilot on a P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter. 

In May 2024, a team of researchers found Bong’s famous crashed P-38 Lightning fighter plane, in Papua New Guinea. Bong named the aircraft ‘Marge’ after Marjorie Vattendahl, who would later become his wife. 

When the recovered P-38 fighter went down in Papua New Guinea, Thomas E. Malone was at the controls.  

He was on a weather reconnaissance mission with another aircraft on March 24, 1944, but encountered testing conditions and turbulence.   

The two aircraft lost radio contact with each other and one of Malone’s P-38 engines failed. After entering a spin, he was forced to bail, and Marge’s fate was sealed.   

Pierre Clostermann (France) 

Described by no less than General Charles de Gaulle as ‘France’s first fighter’, Pierre Clostermann was the country’s greatest pilot during World War II. 

In 1921, Clostermann was born in Curitiba, Brazil, and was the son of a French diplomat. He was educated in France but returned to the country of his birth at the age of 16. 

There, he learned to fly at a Brazilian flying club in Manguinhos, on the Bücker Bü 131 Jungmann and Bü 133 Jungmeister.  

In 1940, Clostermann signed up with the Free French air force, having been refused entry two years earlier.  

Based with the RAF at Biggin Hill, Clostermann was trained to fly the Submarine Spitfire and subsequently destroyed his first enemy aircraft in July 1943.  

22 mars 2006 : mort de Pierre Henry Clostermann, le « 1er chasseur de France ».

L'as français de la chasse était un personnage hors normes : à 24 ans, il possédait 33 victoires homologuées en combat aérien.#Thread pic.twitter.com/QtEaWiC0ve

— 𝓒𝓱𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓸𝓕𝓲𝓵 (@ChronoFil) March 22, 2019

In 1944, during the Normandy landings, Clostermann provided air cover to protect Allied forces as thousands of soldiers arrived in France.  

 By the close of the war, Clostermann was credited with 33 victories, the most by any French pilot. 

In the following years he was heralded as a French hero and entered politics as Charles de Gaulle’s deputy in the national assembly in Paris. 

He went on to publish a highly successful book about his life and was later a director of Air France and Renault.  

He passed away on March 22, 2006, having been granted the Legion of Honour, France’s highest and most prestigious accolade. 

Since 2005, the aircraft, officially called the “Spirit of Excellence”, a Boeing B747-200 with registration N787RR, was operated by none other than British engine maker Rolls-Royce, which used it as a Flying Test Bed or FTB.  

A flying test bed is in essence a flying laboratory that allows engineers to test new engine types in all sorts of real operational environments. 

The aircraft, nicknamed “Hefty Bee”, was specially configured to carry a supplementary engine mount so that new engine types can be tested in real flight conditions while preserving full propulsion redundancy. This means that one of the aircraft’s wings carries three engines instead of the usual two, for a total of five. 

The aircraft cabin was fitted with instruments capable of collecting large amounts of data about the engine’s performance in flight. 

From airliner to flying laboratory 

At the time of its retirement, Hefty Bee was one of only 15 other active B747-200s left in the world.  

Its first operator was Cathay Pacific, back in 1980. The aircraft was operated by the Hong Kong-based carrier until 1999, when it was acquired by ACMI and cargo operator Air Atlanta Icelandic and its subsidiary Air Atlanta Europe until its acquisition by Rolls-Royce in 2005. 

Shortly after its acquisition by the engine maker, Hefty Bee underwent a thorough transformation at L-3 Communications (later rebranded as L3Harris) in Texas, United States, in order to be able to fulfill its new, specialized role. 

Hefty Bee’s first, and perhaps most prominent mission, was to test the Trent 1000 engine, designed specifically to power the, what was then new and revolutionary, Boeing 787 Dreamliner. 

However, the aircraft’s useful life did not end with the Trent 1000’s entry into service in 2011. By mid-2025, Hefty Bee’s service record included 250 flights and 800 flying hours, 10 and five times more, respectively, than the 25 flights and 150 flight hours that had originally been planned by Rolls-Royce. In fact, the British engine ended up doubling the aircraft’s use rate from two to four flights per week. 

The need to keep working on the Trent 1000 program after some operators reported reliability issues and premature blade corrosion, ensured that Hefty Bee would continue to be engaged in the successive development and update of this engine type. 

But Rolls-Royce’s unique B747 also took part in other notable engine research programs. More recently, the smaller Pearl 10 engine, developed by the British engine maker to power the Dassault Falcon 10X business jet, has also used Hefty Bee as a test bank. Rolls-Royce tested the specially modified B747 between May and October 2024.  

Some of those test flights were performed using 100% Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). However, this was not a first for Hefty Bee. The aircraft had already completed a 100% SAF flight test in 2021 although on that occasion it was using a Trent 1000 instead of a Pearl 10 engine. 

In a written response to AeroTime’s questions about the recent missions undertaken by Hefty Bee, Rolls-Royce highlighted the aircraft’s central role in the firm’s commitment towards sustainable aviation. 

“It made history in 2021 by flying a Trent 1000 powered entirely by 100% sustainable aviation fuel. More recently it played a key role in the certification of the durability enhancement package to more than double time on wing for that engine, part of a wider £1bn investment,” the statement read. “Its final mission, completed in July 2025, supported our Advanced Low Emissions Combustion System (ALECSys) engine demonstrator, marking a significant step towards delivering more efficient and sustainable engines.” 

The statement referred to an ongoing research program, backed by the EU’s Clean Sky initiative and the UK’s Aerospace Technology Institute (ATI), which aims to lower the environmental footprint of aircraft engines by making the fuel burning process more efficient by pre-mixing fuel and air. 

Regardless of its role in researching such current matters, the ALECSys program marks the end of the road for Hefty Bee. 

What next for Hefty Bee? 

The aircraft has been donated to the Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona, right next to what has been its base for the last two decades. There it will join another jumbo jet N747GE, a Boeing 747-100 which was used by Rolls-Royce’s competitor GE Aerospace as a test bank between 1992 and 2017. 

Rolls-Royce had long been preparing for Hefty Bee’s retirement. In 2019, the engine maker even acquired another jumbo jet, a much newer B747-400, registration N747RR, previously operated by Australian airline Qantas. 

In a surprising move, though, Rolls-Royce cancelled a project to transform N747RR into another flying test bed in 2022 and sent the aircraft to be scrapped. 

The engine maker, which has spent the last few years immersed in a major turnaround, has stated its willingness to use a mix of platforms and processes to test its new engines going forward.  

Rolls-Royce told AeroTime that the company plans to continue using “a blend of flying test beds and ground test facilities in the future”. 

It is not yet known which specific aircraft the engine maker plans to use as future flying test beds. However, it seems likely that its engine programs, such as the UltraFan technology which Rolls-Royce is developing for the Trent family, will see increased reliance on ground testing and simulators in the near future. 

The reunion took place at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, on July 23, 2025.

Before the Fall of Saigon, the RAAF’s Detachment S was formed in 1975 to transport supplies to South Vietnam and assist with civilian evacuations amid an unfolding humanitarian crisis.

It comprised eight C-130 Hercules aircraft from 36 and 37 Squadrons and two C-47 Dakotas from Transport Support Flight, Butterworth.  Among those they intended to rescue and airlift were thousands of children of servicemen.

An estimated 100,000 children were born to foreign (mostly US) military servicemen and Vietnamese women during the Vietnam War. Referred to colloquially as ‘Bui Doi’, meaning ‘dust of life’, these children were often neglected and left behind in Vietnam as orphans.

Two Babylift missions took place in April 1975, the first on April 4, before a smaller number of children were rescued on April 17. RAAF personnel clocked up 465 hours of flying time in April 1975 alone, but the mission to airlift Vietnamese orphans retains a special significance.

“Feeding and nursing those children on the tarmac gave us a perspective on the real victims, the real losers in war, the innocent,” said Air Commodore (retd) Ian Scott, a former Hercules navigator who was on the second airlift flight.

“At the time we did not question the wisdom of shuttling those poor kids off to places unknown around the world, but it seemed to us at the time the best thing for their survival,” Scott added.”But that didn’t address the issue of being torn from their family, their country and their culture that many of them faced as they grew up in foreign lands.”

"Operation Babylift’ took place in April1975 Following the catastrophic Vietnam War in which the #US killed 2,000,000 civilians, Multitudes became orphans They US flew the babies back to America, and then citizens of U.S.A., Australia, Canada and France adopted them. Kidnapped? pic.twitter.com/Kpm2jqly7K

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) March 22, 2023

Operation Babylift ran between April 3 and 26, 1975. In total, approximately 3,000 children were evacuated from Saigon.

Of that figure, more than 2,500 were relocated to the United States, where they were adopted by families. Australian families adopted more than 250 children who became members of the Australian community. 

During the reunion, several crew spoke about their personal accounts of the operation, including former Qantas B747 engineer John Douglas, who remembered carrying three infants in cardboard boxes. “Looking at these kids– each body was a life displaced, seeking not just a passage but a future.” Douglas recounted. 

Known locally as Salon International de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace, the revered spectacle will be the 55^th edition of the air show, which is held every two years.  

Spread across 70 hectares at Paris-Le Bourget Airport (LBG) over 300,000 visitors will tread the hallowed ground with 2,500 exhibitors from 48 countries ready to greet air show guests.  

Representatives from the civil aviation, defense and space sectors will all be present with companies keen to show off their latest innovations and cutting-edge technologies. 

Among the Paris Air Show highlights this year is the Space Lab where institutions, SMEs, and startups will come together and the Air Lab exhibition where guests can take part in an immersive experience. 

Visitors are also being encouraged to visit the National Air and Space Museum of France.  

The importance of the Paris Air Show (and its contemporaries in Dubai and Farnborough) to the aviation industry cannot be understated. These are the moments when new aircraft types are unveiled to the world for the first time, and billion-dollar contracts are finally signed off.  

The big stories from the Paris Air Show are yet to be revealed, with the all-important announcements no doubt going through their final rehearsals. 

With this in mind, AeroTime thought it was a good opportunity to reflect on moments from previous Paris Air Shows that have stood out since its inception way back in 1909.  

1909 – Inaugural Paris Air Show at Grand Palais 

Rather ironically, the Paris Air Show’s journey actually began at the Paris Motor Show in 1908, as a small additional segment to the cars being showcased. 

However, in 1909, against the backdrop of Louis Blériot becoming the first person to cross the English Channel in a plane, it was finally aviation’s time to shine. 

The first official, independent event was held at the Grand Palais in Paris between September 25 and October 17, 1909, with over 100,000 visitors estimated to have attended. 

While Grand Palais saw the first indoor exhibition, the first airshow, known as Grande Semaine d’Aviation de la Champagne, was held just a month before in Reims. 

1909 Paris Air Show.

This is Tartarian / Old World Architecture.

Absolutely beautiful! pic.twitter.com/Oft1kEpIae

— Keith K (@My_TeslaModelS) December 7, 2023

Among the aircraft at the opening Paris Air Show were the Blériot XI, Voisin Biplane, Antoinette IV and the Wright Flyer.  

The event, designed to showcase mostly French early aviation technology and aircraft, was a resounding success and set the wheels in motion for the Paris Air Show to become the largest in the world. 

1949 – The first Paris Air Show after World War Two 

The 1949 Paris Air Show was a seminal moment as the first event held since World War Two when the exhibition was paused in 1938.  

While the Grand Palais remained the main focus in 1949, it was decided that flight displays should be held at Paris-Le Bourget Airport (LBG). The entire air show would eventually move to the airport in 1953. 

International aircraft manufacturers from the US, UK and Soviet Russia also joined the spectacle as countries looked to the future after years of fighting. 

Jet fighters including the de Havilland DH100 Vampire, Gloster Meteor and Dassault Oregan featured and wowed visitors with their futuristic capabilities. 

It was also the year that it was decided that the Paris Air Show would be held biennially, a now familiar pattern in the aviation industry calendar. 

1967 – Concorde unveiled to thousands  

In arguably one of the greatest moments in Paris Air Show history, Concorde made its public debut in June 1969 in front of a 250,000 strong crowd.  

The French prototype Concorde 001 appeared before crowds first and was later joined by the British prototype Concorde 002, which flew over from UK for the occasion.  

Archive footage of the incredible scene showed the French Concorde 001 touch down momentarily before accelerating and taking off once again. 

Both aircraft appeared in the sky together, but while Concorde 001 eventually landed, Concorde 002 sped back to the UK. 

Although the media attention was at fever pitch, it would still be seven years before Concorde entered service in 1976.  

The iconic Boeing 747-100, known as the City of Everett and registered N7470, also made its debut appearance at the Paris Air Show in 1969.  

The Boeing 747, which was itself still in its test stage of its development, flew in from Seattle and arguably caused more of a stir among crowds than the two Concordes.  

Not to be outdone, NASA also displayed the Apollo 8 module at the air show in 1969, just one month before Apollo 11 landed on the moon.  

Apollo 8 was the first crewed spacecraft to enter lunar orbit, circumvent the Moon, and then return to Earth.  

1973 – Soviet Tu-144 crashes during a demonstration flight 

The Paris Air Show has delighted crowds for more than 100 years but in 1973 the event turned into tragedy when a Soviet Tupolev Tu-144 crashed, killing all six crew members and eight people on the ground.  

The Tu-144 was the Soviet Union’s own supersonic passenger aircraft, and amid the backdrop of the Cold War there was intense rivalry with Concorde.  

On June 3, 1973, following the Concorde display, the Tu-144 took to the skies, piloted by Mikhail Kozlov, who was keen to show the world the aircraft’s capabilities. 

1/9 #OTD in 1973: Paris Air Show Tu-144 crash (France). On a demo flight, the 2nd production Tu-144 [CCCP-77102], a Soviet Supersonic Transport, breaks apart on a steep dive. All 6 aboard, 8 on the ground die. Cause: crew exceeded jet´s flight envelope, causing a structural… pic.twitter.com/uPvl3zZNqU

— Air Safety #OTD by Francisco Cunha (@OnDisasters) June 3, 2025

Following a low pass over the Paris runway, Kozlov fired up the aircraft’s four engines and initiated a steep climb. 

According to reports, at around 4,000 ft the supersonic jet dived but the pilot was unable to pull out and under the strain the left wing separated and there was an explosion. 

Theories about what caused the crash have been poured over since the incident. A joint investigation by French and Soviet investigation offered no real concrete explanations.  

1983 – Space Shuttle Enterprise visit

The star of the Paris Air Show in June 1983 was NASA’s Space Shuttle Enterprise which arrived in France aboard a modified Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier.  

Enterprise mounted on the back of the Boeing 747, towered above all the other aircraft on display, and even took part in demonstration flights (be it still attached to the 747). 

Un Concorde, un Space Shuttle Enterprise et un Boeing 747 sur la même image, lors du Paris Air Show (1983).

(Photo via Museum of Flight) pic.twitter.com/ryaQwolh3C

— Views (@viewsfrance) May 8, 2024

According to a UPI article written at the time, Space Shuttle Enterprise was on a tour of Europe with NASA hoping to drum up business for its satellite launching mission.  

First introduced on September 17, 1976, NASA’s Space Shuttle Enterprise was designed to undertake tests to prepare its sister ships for orbital flights. 

2005 – Airbus A380 introduction

In 2005, the largest commercial aircraft ever built made its public debut at the 46^th Paris Air Show with thousands of people arriving to see the new double-decker jet.  

The Airbus A380, registered F-WWOW, had completed its maiden flight just two months earlier after development of the plane was first announced in 1990.  

At the air show more than a dozen aircraft were making their debut appearances, including the Dassault 7X and Embraer EMB-195, but the A380 overshadowed them all (quite literally).  

Thousands watched as the gravity defying A380 heaved itself off the runway to carry out a flight display for thousands of eager spectators.  

Two years later the extraordinary aircraft made its debut passenger flight but in 2021, 16 years after wowing crowds in Paris, production of the Airbus A380 drew to an untimely close.  

However, despite its enviable position as the leading carrier between the US, the UK, and Europe, no accolade, award, or title could render the company immune from a series of internal disputes, financial issues, and worst of all, a fatal accident involving one of its Boeing 747s which killed all 230 passengers and crew onboard. The fallout from these events would eventually combine, leading to the bankruptcy of one of the airline industry’s most prominent and iconic players, which would ultimately lead to its demise and the selling of its remaining assets to a fellow US airline.

In this article, AeroTime examines the tumultuous and troubled history of TWA – from its humble beginnings flying mail flights on behalf of the US Postal Service to its dramatic fall from grace and eventual closure in 2001. Truly a rollercoaster of a story that still is referred to nowadays as a case study of how not to run an airline.

TWA – some context

TWA did not originally stand for Trans World Airlines. The letters TWA were originally an acronym for Transcontinental & Western Air, an early airline that flew passengers and air mail across the continental US, becoming one of the first carriers to do so.

During its seven decades of flying, TWA became one of the largest carriers operating in the US, operating a sizable fleet of jet aircraft to a host of domestic and international destinations across North America, Europe, the Caribbean, and the Middle East.

At its height between 1967 and 1970, the carrier would become the world’s largest airline in terms of passengers carried annually, behind Aeroflot and fellow US carrier United. The airline operated a huge number of aircraft types during its existence, including almost 400 individual jet aircraft. The company became an early pioneer of the jet age, utilizing Boeing 707s, 747s, and Convair 880s on many of its international routes.

In its later years, many of the older aircraft would be sold off or grounded to be replaced by newer Boeing twinjets and McDonnell Douglas products. TWA is sometimes best remembered as one of the original operators of the Boeing 747SP, the US manufacturer’s short-fuselage, longer-range version of its venerable jumbo jet.

According to the US Department of Transportation, between 1990 and 2001, TWA carried 280 million passengers, just under three times the number carried by Delta Air Lines in 2024 alone. Yet, the airline was considered to be one of the biggest and best airlines in its heyday, before things turned sour and the airline ultimately failed.

The early years of development

TWA was first established on July 16, 1930, as Transcontinental & Western Air, flying air mail routes on behalf of the US Postal Service as well as carrying passengers on these flights. The company flew one of the first transcontinental services in the US, from New York to Los Angeles with intermediary stops at cities along the way, including St Louis and Kansas City. The route took around 36 hours to complete in each direction.

The company resulted from the merger of two fledgling mail carrier airlines in 1928: Western Air Express, founded in 1925, and Transcontinental Air Transport, founded in 1928. Since 1926. Western Air Express had been flying mail and passengers in its first year of service between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. Meanwhile, Transcontinental Air Transport had been developing its own transcontinental network so that it could bid for even more lucrative postal contracts from the US government.

The two carriers merged following a suggestion of the US Postmaster General, who believed that having two airlines under expensive government contracts to deliver airmail across the US was unviable and uneconomic. The airlines operated almost identical routes and were both being paid by the US Postal Service for largely the same task.

Upon its incorporation post-merger, TWA established a new headquarters in Kansas City in the state of Missouri. Already a staging post and overnight stop of the airline’s transcontinental route from east to west coasts, Kansas City was suggested by acclaimed aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh, who had originally been involved with Transcontinental Air Transport. TWA constructed its first headquarters buildings at the Kansas City Municipal Airport (KCI), with additional offices scattered throughout the city. Joining other rapidly developing airlines such as American, United, and Eastern Airlines, TWA would quickly become one of the country’s “Big Four” domestic airlines.

In 1934, Western Air Express was spun back out of TWA, becoming an independent operator once again and later assuming the name of Western Air Lines. Also in 1931, 30-year-old William John Frye became the president of TWA. Frye’s previous career was as a stunt pilot working in Hollywood before taking up the position with TWA.

In 1938, in a bold move that would propel TWA ahead of its competitors in terms of range and comfort levels, Frye placed an order with the Boeing Airplane Company for its long-range Boeing 307 Stratoliner. To fund the purchase of the ultra-luxurious propliners, Frye convinced the famed aviation pioneer and business magnate Howard Hughes to finance the purchase and also to invest in TWA itself. Over time, Hughes built up his shareholding in the airline, eventually assuming control of the carrier in 1939.

Wartime and post-war TWA

Shortly afterwards, World War Two began, and TWA’s aircraft were used to support the US military throughout the Allied campaign. However, in 1945, and with the war over, the airline decided to expand rapidly and to aggressively fight for greater market share against airlines like American Airlines and United. In time, TWA would establish itself as the second-largest carrier in the US, behind Pan Am. 

In 1946, TWA introduced the first of its new Lockheed Constellations on its transcontinental New York to Los Angeles route, an aircraft renowned for its speed and comfort. Indeed, TWA Constellation services were seen as offering a far superior experience to that of United Airlines, which continued to use the slower and noisier Douglas DC-4s. That same year, TWA began transatlantic operations for the first time, operating between New York City and Paris, France.

However, the rapid growth and continued success of TWA were not without their setbacks. Later in 1947, Frye (the president) and Hughes (the airline’s major shareholder) became embroiled in a bitter dispute, largely over how much money the company was losing. At the time, TWA was losing $20 million a year and was getting increasingly in debt to the US major oil companies, which began to threaten to withhold supplying TWA aircraft with aviation fuel as a result of unpaid bills.

Exacerbating the dispute was a strike called by the TWA pilots’ union, grounding airplanes and causing a loss of reputation amongst the travelling public. To try to steady the ship, Hughes provided an additional $10 million of financing, later converted to 1,039,000 additional shares in the company. Through this deal, Frye was removed from the airline entirely, and Hughes brought in 11 new members to the TWA board, while assuming full control in the process.

The birth of Trans World Airlines

Until 1950, the carrier had retained its full name of Transcontinental & Western Air. However, with the event of Hughes taking full control and something of a fresh start for the airline, the carrier changed its legal name to Trans World Airlines, cleverly retaining the acronym TWA for which the airline had become known.

In September 1952, TWA introduced the first of its larger Lockheed L1049 Super Constellations to its fleet. Once again, these aircraft offered a far superior service to that offered by the competition, with the new aircraft seen as the epitome of speed and luxury on both transcontinental and transatlantic routes.

Subsequently, on October 19, 1953, TWA became the first US airline to begin operating scheduled, nonstop transcontinental services between New York and Los Angeles. The addition of the longer-range Super Constellations allowed the airline to expand its international routes across Europe, as well as to the Middle East, Africa, and Asia throughout the 1950s, spreading the TWA name and brand even further across the globe.

In 1956, the company decided to consolidate all of its operations into one facility. A new headquarters building was constructed in downtown Kansas City at the site of a former brewery and costing $1.5 million to convert. At the time, the corporate headquarters building was the first major commercial structure built in the city in decades. The exterior was covered in red and white metal paneling, in keeping with the TWA adopted corporate colors. The three-story L-shaped commercial facility was completed in October 1956.

A giant 6.7m (22ft) model rocket named ‘Moonliner II’ was mounted on the roof of the new headquarters building. It was a 1/3 scale replica of another rocket, the ‘Moonliner I’, that was exhibited in Tomorrowland at Disneyland in Anaheim, California. The Moonliner at Disneyland was sponsored by TWA from 1955 to 1962 and featured the company’s logo. After the partnership ended, the Moonliner II rocket was removed from the top of the building headquarters. It eventually ended up as an exhibit at  Kansas City’s National Airline History Museum, where it remains.

TWA enters the jet age

With the start of the 1960s came the dawn of a new era in commercial aviation in the form of the jet age. TWA was one of the early adopters of the new technology, ordering Boeing 707s and 720B long-range quad jets which it would use as a springboard to expand its international operations even further.

Then, in 1961, things turned sour at TWA. Howard Hughes, who remained TWA’s principal shareholder, lost control of the airline to a group of Wall Street banks and financial institutions that had financed the purchase of the new jet aircraft entering the airline. An antitrust lawsuit combined with a complex network of civil litigation cases followed. However, despite being called to appear at court on multiple occasions, Hughes, known as something of a reclusive character, refused to attend the hearings. Eventually, in 1966, Hughes sold his TWA shares for over $500 million and left the airline industry to pursue other business ventures.

By this time, and with the arrival of its new fleet of long-range Boeing aircraft, TWA had become a major player across the Atlantic. This culminated with the opening of the iconic TWA Flight Center at New York-JFK Airport (JFK), a dedicated air terminal for TWA transatlantic and transcontinental flights. The building quickly established itself as an architectural icon, adopting an Art Deco feel and appearance, and quickly became synonymous with TWA’s high-quality long-haul services from New York (see Remaining legacies of TWA below).

By 1964, TWA had become a major international player in aviation and was world-renowned for offering an elevated passenger experience. The rapid growth of its operations resulted in the airline transferring its headquarters to New York City. However, the iconic Kansas City headquarters building was retained to house TWA’s accounting department, ticket office, credit department, cargo department, and flight attendant training until 1969. Additionally, around this time, the airline began developing a further significant US hub at St Louis-Lambert International Airport (STL).

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, TWA retained its position as a leading player in international and national markets, a reputation it had worked hard and spent vast amounts of money to achieve. In 1961, the airline became the first airline to introduce in-flight movies on long-haul flights, while in 1967, the airline acquired the entire chain of Hilton Hotels as well as the Century 21 Real Estate chain in an attempt to diversify the company’s business interests away from aviation.

TWA #1 across the Atlantic

In July 1969, the airline officially replaced New York archrival Pan Am as the world’s number-one transatlantic airline. Not resting on its laurels, the carrier would give a further boost to its transatlantic operations the following year with the arrival of the carrier’s first Boeing 747jumbo jets, resplendent in the airline’s red and white livery and offering first class passengers the benefit of a stand-up lounge bar in the upstairs ‘bubble’ of the iconic jets. While TWA initially began flying the Boeing 747 on its well-established New York to Los Angeles transcontinental service, it would soon appear on flights from JFK to London-Heathrow, Paris-Charles De Gaulle, and Frankfurt.

From 1969 to 1975, TWA also operated trans-Pacific services to key cities in Asia and became a round-the-world carrier, offering connecting services heading both eastward and westward from JFK that would enable a circumnavigational travel itinerary to be constructed. However, in 1975, it suspended these services in a route exchange with Pan American World Airways, taking on more transatlantic routes while Pan Am focused on trans-Pacific operations and the round-the-world service.

1978 marked a seismic shift in the US airline industry landscape. In that year, the Airline Deregulation Act was passed, deregulating the US airline industry and removing all federal control over various activities, including fare fixing, route development, and the removal of barriers to entry for new carriers, although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) retained full regulatory powers over all aspects of aviation safety in the industry.

The Deregulation Act led to a wave of airline failures, start-ups, and takeovers as the carriers engaged in intense competition with each other while also struggling against rising fuel costs due to an increase in oil prices on the world stage. The focus on its international network had left TWA seriously exposed in the US domestic market, with numerous other airlines starting to encroach on its market share across the US.  

The start of financial woes

To better cope with a fast-changing market following deregulation, in 1979, TWA was reorganized under the ownership of a holding company called Transworld Corporation. Then, in 1984, Transworld floated TWA in a public offering on the New York Stock Exchange to bolster its finances. The airline had left itself in a vulnerable position and was experiencing significant financial issues with rising debts amid increasing competition. The airline had even become the target of a hostile takeover in a plot that eventually failed.     

In late 1985, renowned American investor Carl Icahn acquired the majority of the shares in TWA. In 1986, TWA bought Ozark Air Lines, a carrier with an established route network in the south-central United States, giving its domestic network a much-needed boost. However, it would prove to be an insufficient move to reverse TWA’s fortunes, and with Icahn at the helm, TWA began to sell off some of its most profitable assets to competitors to generate enough cash to pay off its debts.

In 1988, Icahn assumed full control of TWA and returned the airline to full private ownership once again, receiving $469 million for securing the deal. The agreement also resulted in TWA taking on $540 million in debt. In 1991, with TWA still facing financial strain, Icahn sold TWA’s historically important and prized routes serving London-Heathrow Airport to American Airlines for $445 million. However, many saw this move as akin to “selling the family silver” and one which would hasten the ultimate demise of TWA.

Although TWA continued to operate as usual, these measures did little to stem its losses. In January 1992, with creditors circling and debts continuing to rise, TWA filed for US Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to allow it time to reorganise its finances and its operation without the threat of liquidation hanging over it while it did so.

Within a year, in 1993, TWA exited Chapter 11 protection thanks to a deal that saw 55% of the company now under creditor ownership. Carl Icahn was himself a creditor being owed $190 million by the airline by this stage. The whole process through Chapter 11 saw the relationship between TWA and Icahn deteriorate, and a deal was reached with Icahn where he would sever ties with the airline in exchange for reduced tickets on TWA services. Jeffrey H. Erickson took over from Icahn as president in 1994 and moved the airline’s headquarters for the third time in its history to St. Louis.

The airline attempted to fight its way back from a loss-making position, taking on more modern aircraft (such as the Boeing 757 and 767 and ordering the new Boeing 717 twinjet) while retiring its remaining Lockheed Tristars and Boeing 727s. Yet, with its transatlantic network largely gone and with hugely increased competition in the US domestic market, the writing was on the wall for TWA by this point.

Bankruptcy again, followed by Flight 800

Despite a raft of cost-cutting measures, TWA continued to operate at a loss throughout the 1990s and was forced to declare bankruptcy for a second time in 1995. While things looked grim for the airline at this point, the situation would soon become a whole lot worse for the airline.

On July 17, 1996, shortly after departure from JFK Airport in New York and heading to Paris, one of TWA’s remaining Boeing 747-200s (which was 25 years old at the time) suffered a mid-air explosion, killing all 230 people on board while heading out over the Atlantic Ocean close to Long Island.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later concluded that the most likely cause of the disaster was a center fuel tank explosion, which had been caused by arcing of exposed electrical wiring in the area surrounding the fuel tank. Coverage of the disaster focused on the age of the carrier’s old and tired fleet, which was among the oldest in international service, and speculated as to whether cost-cutting by the airline had led to engineering shortcuts putting safety at risk.

Amid bankruptcy and with an internationally reported fatal crash to add to its woes, the late 1990s also saw TWA hamstrung by its mechanics unions, which were fighting the airline against a proposal by TWA to close numerous maintenance bases across its network. In Europe, stringent labor laws meant TWA had to retain engineering staff, despite having no work for them to perform. The airline did eventually emerge from bankruptcy for a second time, but only briefly.

TWA closes as American Airlines swoops

In January 2001, having limped on for years and with no real prospects of launching a recovery to become a profitable business once again, it was announced that TWA was filing for bankruptcy for the third time and would be shut down. The company’s remaining assets, route structure, and aircraft would be picked up by American Airlines, which had taken TWA’s prized transatlantic routes some years previously.

Having once been a pioneer for US domestic and transatlantic travel, and having forged a reputation for itself for fast, reliable and comfortable air travel, TWA’s fall from grace in its 70 years of history was little short of spectacular. With its failure, the airline joined other iconic US carriers such as Eastern Airlines and Pan Am that had once been the pride of the US airline industry but had failed to sustain their longevity amid rising costs and increased competition.

Similar to Pan Am and the fatal loss of Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, the destruction of one of TWA’s flagship Boeing 747s was the final straw for the airline, as well as a metaphor for the fall from grace for both airlines that at one stage had been the forerunners in the burgeoning US airline industry. Having been in operation for over 70 years, TWA joined Pan Am as an icon of America’s golden age of aviation and a pioneer of commercial passenger travel on the scrapheap.

Remaining legacies of TWA

Although the name of TWA will remain deeply embedded within the history books of aviation, there remains little in terms of tangible evidence that the once mighty airline existed. However, there are two pieces of evidence that keep the TWA flame alight, long after the airline itself disappeared from the skies.

As part of its heritage fleet program, American Airlines retains several Boeing 737-800s in its current fleet, sporting the colors of airlines that have been merged into the carrier over the years. One of these is the 737 registered as N915NN, which carries the 1980s and 1990s era TWA livery with the twin-dart fuselage cheatlines in red, accompanied by the iconic red tail with TWA lettering. The aircraft was first rolled out in this livery in 2015 and flies alongside others that display the colors of other former US carriers now part of American Airlines, including AirCal, Republic, US Airways, and Piedmont.

Secondly, at New York-JFK Airport stands the TWA Hotel. Constructed within the former TWA Flight Center, the iconic Art Deco terminal opened by the airline in 1962, the hotel still serves the public today and alongside luxurious accommodation, houses an extraordinary collection of TWA memorabilia, artifacts, and uniforms dating back to the ‘Golden Age of Travel.’ Topping off the visitor experience is the existence of a fully restored Super Constellation in the hotel forecourt, resplendent in its 1960s TWA livery, which visitors can step aboard and see for themselves how TWA passengers travelled in the airline’s heyday.

Conclusion

Having begun life from the humblest of beginnings, TWA grew to become a formidable force both within the US domestic market as well as across the North Atlantic. However, offering a premium experience on new aircraft would come at a cost, which would start a spiral of debt from which the company never recovered.

Like many airline failures, TWA’s ultimate demise was a combination of several factors, which included but were not limited to, lack of cost control, internal squabbles, mounting debts, an ageing fleet, deregulation and increased competition, loss of consumer confidence as bankruptcy lingered, and finally, the tragic loss of Flight 800.

While any one of these may have been manageable, the combination of them all was simply too much for TWA to withstand, confining one of the most iconic airline brands in history to the aviation archives. 

Radar, which stands for Radio Detection and Ranging, is essentially ‘reading’ or identifying objects through radio waves that bounce off those objects and return to a receiver. By measuring the time it takes for reflected waves to return, radar systems can determine an object’s distance and velocity.

The development of radar during World War II

The study and exploration of radar began in the late 1880s, when German physicist Heinrich Hertz discovered that radio waves were reflected by metallic objects. 

However, developing practical radar systems for military applications was not achieved until February 26, 1935, when Scottish physicist and radio engineer Sir Robert Watson-Watt demonstrated how radio waves could be used to detect aircraft. 

Watson-Watt demonstrated the first practical radio system for detecting aircraft to a British Air Ministry (AM) committee. The Air Ministry was impressed with the technology, and in April 1935, Watson-Watt received a patent for the system and funding for further development.

In late 1939, the opening of higher frequencies to radar was discovered by British physicists at the University of Birmingham. Essentially, this enables radar to detect with better accuracy at shorter wavelengths. 

Between 1940-1945, more than 100 different radar systems were developed at the newly-formed Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Radiation Laboratory at Cambridge. The laboratory, then nicknamed the ‘Rad Lab’, became a pivotal research center and played a crucial role in the development of radar technology during World War II.

Why didn’t the Germans develop radar technology during World War II?

It may seem ironic that it was a German physicist who first discovered radio waves reflected by metallic objects, yet radar technology was not heavily deployed or developed by the Nazis as part of their arsenal for World War II.

According to an article by Stanford tech publication Rewired, the Germans grew complacent with their initial radar innovations early on in the war and consistently lagged behind the Allied forces in the development of radar technology.

Instead, German resources were focused on other technologies and tactics, such as improving the Luftwaffe. Germany’s total wartime expenditures from 1939-1945 was USD 270 Billion, the majority of which was spent on improving the Nazi air fleet, such as the Messerschmitt Me 262, known as the world’s first operational jet fighter.

The Dowding System

One of Britain’s most significant victories during World War II was The Battle of Britain, which saw the Royal Air Force (RAF) successfully defend its airspace against the German Luftwaffe between July and October 1940.

The battle was the first major campaign fought solely in the air, and was a key turning point during World War II. By successfully defending British airspace, the RAF prevented Germany from Hitler’s planned invasion of Britain. According to the RAF, the victory provided a solidified Allied resistance against the Nazi onslaught, and provided a much-needed morale boost, proving that the Axis powers were not unstoppable.

British Air Chief Marshal Hugh Caswall Tremenheere Dowding was the head of Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. 

According to the International Churchill Society, Dowding and a number of British scientists briefed Churchill on RDF, the British abbreviation for Range and Direction Finding, also known as radar. Churchill then recognized that Robert Watson-Watt had the foresight to apply the concept of radar to a military system.

The society says that Watson-Watt’s scientific contribution of RDF, or radar, was a major factor in winning the Battle of Britain.

With radar technology in place, Dowding developed an air defence network that had a clearly defined chain of command, enabling control of both the flow of intelligence on incoming raids and the communication of orders. According to the Imperial War Museums, the system brought together technology, ground defences and fighter aircraft into a unified system of defence. 

Of his strategy of air defense, Dowding said: “The Germans were aimed to facilitate an amphibious landing across the Channel, to invade this country. Mine was the purely defensive role of trying to stop the possibility of an invasion, and thus give this country a breathing spell. I had to do that by denying them control of the air.” 

The Chain Home early warning radar system

Radar gave early warning of approaching raids, and Chain Home, codenamed ‘CH’, played a crucial role in defending British skies.

Chain Home’s technical name was AMES (Air Ministry Experimental Station). It consisted of a network of radar stations, spanning the east coast of England. Chain Home was operational 24/7, providing comprehensive detection.

The system was able to warn the RAF about incoming Luftwaffe attacks, contributing to the resistance to, and eventual defeat of, Nazi Germany. 

A 2019 case study on Chain Home by the National Defense University Press said that early versions of the system were unable to detect low-flying aircraft. The original system only detected aircraft between 25,000 and 1,000 feet above ground level, creating the potential for German aircraft to evade detection. 

To resolve this issue, the RAF designed Chain Home Low, a series of shorter portable towers that could detect aircraft flying at 500 feet.

Why didn’t the Germans just target Chain Home?

In the second volume of his 1951 book, The Second World War: Their Finest Hour, Churchill wrote: “Radar was still in its infancy, but it gave warning of raids approaching our coast, and the observers, with field-glasses and portable telephones, were our main source of information about raiders flying overland,” 

If radar was the British / Allied’s main source warning from outside attacks, why didn’t the German Nazis simply destroy the Chain Home stations that surrounded the coast of Britain?

It’s not that the Germans never tried to target Chain Home. They were able to, but underestimated the impact of the destruction of these radar towers.

Reichsmarschall Hermann Wilhelm Göring, the second most powerful official in Nazi Germany, was one of those who believed that destroying Chain Home was not worth the effort.

A report published by the RAF said that German bombers targeted radar and sector stations but by August 1940, Göring, believing these attacks ineffective, decided to concentrate Luftwaffe efforts on the bombing of British cities.

Göring’s underestimation of the radar stations enabled the RAF to retain the advantage in the air.

According to RAF reports, in August 1940 Göring said: “It is doubtful whether there is any point in continuing attacks on radar sites, in view of the fact that not one of those attacked so far has been put out of action.”

The Battle of Midway

Using radar as an advantage also paved the way for the Americans’ victory over the Japanese Imperial Army during the Battle of Midway.

The Battle of Midway was a pivotal naval battle that took place on June 4-7, 1942, six months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. 

The Midway Islands / Atoll are located in the North Pacific Ocean, specifically in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. It is roughly equidistant between North America and Asia. Much like the Battle of Britain, the US’ victory in Midway halted the growth of Japan’s dominance in the Pacific, and placed the US in a position to put an end to the Japanese empire’s years-long invasion of the Pacific and Southeast Asia.

Although it is considered a naval battle, Midway was fought mostly using aerial combat. Land-based radar placed around Midway spotted inbound Japanese planes long before they reached the islands. 

The National Museum of the Pacific War reported that Japanese ships were not equipped with radar, instead relying on their scout planes for information on the whereabouts of US forces. Delays in launching these scouts meant that the Japanese were unaware of how close the Americans were, until it was too late.

“The Japanese had just lost nearly half of their carrier force in the battle and were forced to turn back from their objective. The balance of power in the Pacific began to shift, and the Americans started launching their own offensives against Japan,” the National Museum of the Pacific War reported.

Battle of the Philippine Sea

The Battle of the Philippine Sea was a major naval battle that occurred on June 19-20, 1944. The combat took place in the Marianas, a 684-kilometer long chain of 14 islands. Less than 500 kilometers to the Marianas’ north is the Japanese base of Iwo Jima. To the Marianas’ south was the Japanese-occupied Caroline Islands.

The battle, which had a decisive victory outcome for the US, was a crucial point when US forces began their advance towards the Japanese homeland and the Pacific.

Famously, the battle is also known as the ‘Great Marianas Turkey Shoot’, a nickname coined by US aviators due to the severely disproportional loss ratio inflicted upon Japanese aircraft by American pilots and anti-aircraft gunners.

There were a number of factors that led to the decisive victory of the Americans, such as superior US pilot training, advanced anti-aircraft technology, and having more aircraft than the Japanese Imperial Army. 

However, it was mainly a combination of breaking the Japanese naval code and employing advanced radar technology that paved the way to victory for the Americans. 

Japanese raids and attacks were intercepted in time because of radar detection. The US were prepared for these ‘surprise’ raids, which resulted in Japanese forces losing 476 aircraft, 13 submarines, five destroyers, two oil tankers and three aircraft carriers. 

In comparison, the US Navy lost only 130 aircraft, and retained all naval vessels. 

Watson-Watts’ legacy

Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt died on December 5, 1973, almost 30 years after his scientific discovery led to the triumph of Allied powers.

German ace pilot General Adolf Galland called radar Britain’s “extraordinary advantage”. 

“From the very beginning, the British had an extraordinary advantage which we could never overcome throughout the war – radar and fighter control…The British fighter was guided all the way from takeoff to his correct position for an attack on the German formations. We had nothing of the kind,” Galland said. 

Today, radar is used throughout our everyday lives: automatic doors on buildings, detecting private vehicles that go over speed limits, weather forecasting, and so on. 80 years on, not many people realize that common and routine tasks are made possible by what was originally, in military terms, an extraordinary advantage. 

That first delivery of the aircraft which would soon become Boeing’s flagship model took place in Everett, Washington, on May 15, 1995. 

The very first airframe to enter commercial service, a B777-200 named “The Ship of the Future” with registration N777UA, was deployed on its first revenue service with United Airlines a few weeks later, on June 7, 1995, on the route between Washington Dulles (IAD) and London Heathrow (LHR). 

The Boeing 777, in its multiple versions, has been one of Boeing’s most successful airliner programs ever, with over 1,700 of the type being built to date.  

The “triple seven”, as it is popularly known, has also set several records throughout the years. 

It was the first commercial aircraft to be designed entirely through computer-aided design and the first twin-engine aircraft to be certified for 180 minutes ETOPS. The B777-200LR version also holds the record to the longest flight without refueling completed by an airliner (set during a demonstration flight from Hong Kong to London across the Pacific in 2005).  

What’s more, for about a quarter of a century, the GE90-115B engine which powers several versions of the B777, was the most powerful commercial aircraft engine. This has now been surpassed by the GE90X, which is, in fact, designed to power the next iteration of the triple seven, the B777X. 

Over the last few years, Boeing has been winding down production of first generation 777s, although several dozen of the type, mostly freighters, remain to be built and delivered, in anticipation of the entry into service of the new 777X. 

This new and thoroughly updated iteration of the B777 family will be produced, at least initially, in two versions, the 777-8 and 777-9. The latter will be the largest aircraft in Boeing’s commercial product offering. 

The B777X first flew in January 2020 and, while the program has been subject to serious delays, it is expected to obtain certification and enter service by 2026, with Lufthansa as the launch customer.

As of May 18, 2025, the Ch-aviation database shows that Boeing has racked up, to date, 521 orders for the both versions of the B777X. This means that the B777, in its latest incarnation, will most likely remain in production for many years, and possibly decades, to come. 

From the six years of fighting, some extraordinary stories of courage and heroism have come to light, many of which have helped to inspire people to overcome adversity and confront the challenges that life throws at us all.

The sad and undeniable reality though is that World War II will be most remembered for its violence and bloodshed, with far too many tales of loss and tragedy.

Of all the World War II stories that unfolded, even today some remain shrouded in mystery with unanswered questions about the fate of brave service personnel.

Cranfield University has said that as many as 72,000 US personnel alone are still unaccounted for from World War II, with around 39,000 deemed to be recoverable.

Often, some of the most poignant World War II mysteries involve Allied air forces pilots and crew who failed to return to base or disappeared on daring missions, seemingly never to be found.

Mission to Sciacca Aerodrome

On July 10, 1943, 2nd Lt Gilbert Haldeen Myers, a co-pilot aboard a US B-25 Mitchell bomber flew out from Dar el Koudia Airfield in Tunisia, North Africa, on a daring mission to strike the Sciacca Aerodrome in Sicily.

The 27-year-old joined the US Army Air forces in Florida and served in the 381st Bombardment Squadron, 310th Bombardment Group.

According to the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA), as the B-25 Mitchell rained bombs down on its target, it was struck by enemy anti-aircraft fire, causing it to lose altitude rapidly.

Badly damaged, the B-25 Mitchell crashed and exploded in a field around one and a half miles from the Sciacca Aerodrome. There were no survivors.

Witnesses claimed that, before the aircraft crashed, a single crew member had been seen bailing out, but a body was ever found and there were no records of an airman being taken prisoner in the area.

According to Cranfield University, in 1947 investigators conducted search and recovery operations near Sciacca, but could not locate anything linking back to Myers.

In September 1943, US investigators were able to identify the main pilot after news that locals had recovered his body and buried him in the Sciacca municipal cemetery.

In 1944, the mystery around the fate of the crew deepened when a US report indicated that the wreckage of the B-25 Mitchell had been found but there were no human remains.

During the 1940s, representatives from the American Graves Registration Service (AGRS) were told that German soldiers had removed three bodies from the crash site but there was no lead on the whereabouts of the deceased.

The following decades passed without any serious breakthrough being made, but in 2021 and 2022 teams from DPAA and Cranfield University Recovery and Identification of Conflict Team (CRICC) returned to Sciacca to undertake a painstaking investigation.

The crash site had been identified in 2017, but the work scouring the vicinity surrounding the impact zone did not begin until the new team arrived.

The investigation involved meticulously examining tons of soil, searching for fragments of human remains or personal effects crucial for identifying crew members.

Finally, on October 8, 2023, investigators announced they had located human remains. After carrying out tests, it was established that they belonged to Lt Gilbert Haldeen Myers.

In St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2023, Myers was put to rest after many decades. Four crew members from the B-25 Mitchell crash still remain unaccounted for.

Saint-Exupéry – ‘The Little Prince’

When the author of ‘The Little Prince’, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, rejoined the World War II effort in April 1943, he was 43 years old, but as a passionate aviator and proud Frenchman he was desperate to serve.

When World War II broke out, Saint-Exupéry flew a Bloch 174 aircraft on reconnaissance missions for the French Air Force. In 1940, he was forced to escape to the US following the German occupation of France.

When he finally returned to action in 1943, he was deployed once again as a reconnaissance pilot, based in North Africa. His aircraft this time was an F-5B, a reconnaissance variant of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

According to National WWII Museum in New Orleans, on July 31, 1944, in preparation for Operation Dragoon, the famous French aristocrat took off from Corsica to photograph Grenoble, France.

Saint-Exupéry was assigned to gather intelligence on German troop movements, but he never returned to his base. Eight days later he was declared missing in action, presumed dead.

Over the next 44 years, Saint-Exupéry’s disappearance remained a mystery, but in 1998 a chance encounter reinvigorated efforts to find out what happened.

In September 1998, a fisherman off the Marseille coast found Saint-Exupéry’s identity bracelet, inscribed with his and his wife’s names, plus those of the publisher, Reynal & Hitchcock.

However, there were doubts about the bracelet’s authenticity as it was found far from the flight path Saint-Exupéry had taken on July 31, 1944.

Two years later, in 2000, divers hit the jackpot when they discovered the remains of Saint-Exupéry’s aircraft in a similar area to that in which the bracelet had been found.

Bracelet of Saint-Exupéry found by the fisherman Jean-Claude Bianco in 1998. pic.twitter.com/3HoUiFUoze

— Bibliophilia (@Libroantiguo) March 9, 2015

According to a 2004 CBS News article, on impact with the sea the aircraft had broken into hundreds of fragments which lay up to 90 meters below the surface, just under two miles from the coast between Marseille and Cassis.

Subsequent investigations by underwater experts could not find any evidence among the debris to suggest that the aircraft had been shot down. In 2004, fragments of the wreckage were moved to the Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace in Paris.

Speculation over what caused the crash has raged for years and the subject of Saint-Exupéry’s fate will long continue to mystify the public.

A former Luftwaffe pilot claimed that he believed he shot Saint-Exupéry’s plane down, and in August 1944 there were reports that a body of an unidentified man dressed in a French uniform washed up near to where the bracelet was eventually found.

Glenn Miller – Death of a musical legend

Major Glenn Miller was an extremely popular famous US composer and musician who had a series of hits with his orchestra through the 1930s and 40s.

A highly accomplished trombone player, Miller became a US Army Air Force captain and the leader of a big band that played in front of troops to boost morale during World War II.

After spending time in England rousing troops at military bases, Miller and his band had plans afoot to travel to France following the liberation of Paris.

It was decided that Miller would travel ahead of his band and on December 15, 1944, he left RAF Twinwood Field aboard a Noorduyn C-64 Norseman aircraft.

Accompanying Miller was his friend Lieutenant Colonel Norman Baessell and at the controls was Flight Officer John R. Stuart Morgan.

The trio were on route to Villacoublay Aerodrome, Versailles, and were mapped flying over Beachy Head in East Sussex, but for some reason the C-64 Norseman failed to reach France.

According to Miller biographer and expert Dennis Spragg, the musician’s superiors did not realize he had disappeared for 72 hours, and his band arrived in Paris on December 18, 1944, unaware of their leader’s whereabouts.

1944:A Noorduyn C-64 Norseman carrying famed bandleader Maj Glenn Miller disappears over the English Channel. pic.twitter.com/ee6ENrjaxO

— Air Force Historical Foundation (@AFHF) December 15, 2017

As news began to spread of Miller’s disappearance, there was universal shock among his legions of fans, and when search efforts led to nothing, grief set in.

Over the years, speculation behind the cause of the crash has included rumors that it was hit by a jettisoned bomb from a Lancaster returning to England. Spurious claims even included reports that Miller had died of a heart attack in a brothel in Paris.

While the location of the aircraft wreckage remains unknown, Spragg has said there is no mystery behind what happened that fateful day.

On his website, Spragg detailed that a report from January 20, 1945, concluded that the aircraft went down over the English Channel, most likely due to pilot disorientation and icing leading to carburetor heater failure.

In 2019, a fisherman came forward who claimed to have pulled up the “whole plane” wreckage over 30 years earlier, but Spragg thinks this is unlikely.

“The Norseman was more likely to have disintegrated on impact […] Firstly, after forty years of immersion, the report of an intact airplane is highly unlikely. Secondly, after eighty years of immersion, it is virtually impossible,” wrote Spragg on his website.

Tragedy on North York Moors

On October 11, 1944, Pilot Officer Alfred Robert William Milne and Warrant Officer Eric Alan Stubbs, both 22, were flying a De Havilland Mosquito aircraft on a secret mission.

The pair had left RAF Beccles in Suffolk tasked with transporting a new explosive designed by the Dambuster bomb creator Barnes Wallis.

Named ‘Highball’, the new smaller bouncing bomb was designed to destroy ships but was in fact never used.

As Milne and Stubbs flew to RAF Turnberry in Ayrshire with the Highball onboard, it is believed that the Mosquito suffered a mechanical failure or ran out of fuel, crashing on the North York Moors near Bransdale, Helmsley.

In 2022, the BBC spoke with local military historian Richard Allenby who had witnessed the crash as a young man.

Recollecting the incident, he said the aircraft’s nose dipped before striking a hillside. Allenby said that the onboard bomb then rolled down the hill into a farm’s orchard, but thankfully did not explode.

Many years later, in March 2020, a family in Chop Gate, near Helmsley, around five miles from the crash site, went to check on a community septic tank in a next-door paddock after it became blocked.

While they investigated the blockage, they discovered a bone. When one of the family members recognized it as a jawbone, they decided to call the police.

Soon after, a joint investigation by North Yorkshire Police and the Ministry of Defense Police commenced which led to the discovery of further human remains and military memorabilia.

According to the Daily Mail, forensic teams were able to establish that the jawbone predated 1950, while the condition of the teeth indicated they had been looked after by the RAF, due to the high standard of work that was required to fly at altitude.

Forensic teams also found signs of impact injuries and staining from contact with a helmet or chinstrap.

Incredibly, detectives were able to match DNA samples taken from bone fragments spread across the field with those of relatives of Milne and Stubbs.

Following the Mosquito crash in 1944, it was believed that the remnants of the two airmen’s bodies were buried in Surrey, and that the wreckage and debris were simply buried within the crater.

However, it is thought that significant bone fragments of Milne and Stubbs must have remained at the crash site, though mystery surrounds why they had ended up five miles away in a field.

After the remains were found at Chop Gate, police officers arrested a 72-year-old man, but following an investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) determined that there was not enough evidence to pursue the suspected offences against the individual.

In 2022, an inquest was held into the two young men’s deaths where evidence heard from experts said that the bones found were a secondary deposition – essentially, they had been moved from one place to another.

In reaching a conclusion of accidental death, the coroner said: “It’s 77 years since the end of the Second World War, and 78 years since this incident. This year would have been Sgt Stubbs’ centennial, and PO Milne’s would have been last year.”

They added: “This is a timely reminder to us all of those young men who made the supreme sacrifice during those difficult times, and it’s a reminder of the cost of war.”

The police later confirmed that the remains of Pilot Officer Milne and Warrant Officer Stubbs had been reunited with their families and given military burials.

North Yorkshire Police Detective Inspector Carol Kirk said: “At the beginning of this investigation, I don’t think any of us thought we’d be able to identify who the remains belonged to, let alone return them to their families and be given military burials with the dignity and respect that they deserved.”

Before this critical invention had established itself on the world stage, flying was slower and far more time-consuming when trying to get from A to B by air. While the development of piston-driven propeller engines had enabled aviation to take huge leaps forward in terms of how far and how fast airplanes could fly, there remained a widespread belief that the next major development of aircraft propulsion lay just around the corner. However, it would take money, ingenuity, and a pioneering spirit that would unlock that potential and see a jet-powered aircraft take to the skies. 

That pioneer would be Sir Frank Whittle, a pilot, engineer, inventor, and deep thinker, who would eventually take the leap of faith and take the jet turbine engine from being simply a concept in his imagination, to the drawing board, to being the default aviation powerplant of choice for decades to come.  

This is the story of how an engineer’s son from the heart of England became one of aviation’s true pioneers. With a tenacious spirit and an aptitude for mechanical engineering, it is Sir Frank Whittle that we can all thank for being able to traverse the globe in a matter of hours, rather than days, in the modern age. 

Background

 Frank Whittle was born in Coventry, located in the center of industrial England, on June 1, 1907. Born to a mechanic father, Whittle spent much of his childhood assisting in his father’s company’s workshop, working on mechanized tools and lathes to produce machine parts for other industries. Even at this point, Whittle displayed a keen interest in engineering, becoming an expert in his father’s gas-powered tools and developing a keen interest in aviation on the side.  

As he grew up, Whittle was known to spend much of his spare time at his local library, indulging his interests in aviation, astronomy, engineering, gas turbine engines, and the evolution of flight – all subjects that having an in-depth knowledge of would serve Whittle well as he got older. He also developed a keen interest in joining the Royal Air Force (RAF) as his knowledge grew, and set his mind to joining up as soon as he was old enough.   

Whittle enters the RAF 

In January 1923, having passed the RAF entrance examinations with flying colors, Whittle was taken on initially as an aircraft mechanic. However, he had long held aspirations to fly and set his sights on becoming a pilot. However, being short of stature and frame, Whittle was rejected twice from air crew selection given his size. However, he later applied once more under a false name (an early display of his tenacity and ambition in action). On his third attempt in 1926, Whittle passed the medical and was accepted for flying officer training at the legendary RAF Cranwell training facility. This was an opportunity that Whittle was not going to pass up. 

Whittle excelled in the RAF’s basic flying course, taking his first solo flight (without an instructor onboard) after just 13.5 hours of flight training. He later progressed to flying the RAF’s Bristol Freighter fleet, on which he developed something of a reputation for aerobatic flying and ‘showboating’, for which he found himself in trouble with his senior officers on more than one occasion.  

During his time training, Whittle’s course required each student to produce a thesis before they could graduate from RAF Cranwell. Whittle drew on what he knew best as his chosen subject, which was the development of flight to achieve much higher speeds and altitudes than were possible at the time. In his thesis paper, entitled ‘Future Developments in Aircraft Design,’ Whittle demonstrated that even with further development, piston propeller aircraft would be unlikely to achieve airspeeds of over 500 mph (800 km/h) in the future.  

Instead, Whittle proposed in his paper a new invention which he termed a ‘motorjet’ comprising an air compressor using a conventional piston engine to provide compressed air to a combustion chamber whose exhaust was used directly for thrust. While the concept had already been mooted by the aerospace industry, Whittle argued that his motorjet would work far more efficiently at higher altitudes, and using air of a lower density would increase overall efficiency as it provided less resistance.  

Whittle graduated from the Royal Air Force College in 1928 at the age of 21 and was commissioned as a pilot officer in the RAF, where he would later be described as an “exceptional to above average” pilot. 

Development of Whittle’s design continues 

Whittle continued working on the motorjet principle after his thesis was submitted. He concluded that by substituting the piston engine with a gas turbine, a thrust of much higher power could be achieved with the same basic setup. Instead of using a piston engine-driven compressor to provide the compressed air for the burner, a turbine could be used to extract further power from the exhaust and drive a compressor. The remaining exhaust thrust would provide the thrust for the aircraft. 

Continuing his RAF flying duties, Whittle was such an acclaimed pilot that he was soon selected to become an instructor. While posted to RAF Wittering in Cambridgeshire in 1929, Whittle continued to promote his motorjet design concept to those in charge at the base. Whittle soon found a like-minded individual in Flying Officer Pat Johnson, a former patent examiner. Johnson, in turn, presented Whittle’s concept to the commanding officer of the base.  

Encouraged by the commanding officer to pursue his theories, in late 1929, Whittle sent his concept to the Air Ministry in London to see if it would be of any interest to the UK government. Whittle was subsequently invited to London to meet with an officer of the Ministry’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). However, following that meeting, Whittle received a letter stating that the Air Ministry remained unconvinced that Whittle’s design could achieve the sort of efficiencies needed for a practical jet-powered engine.  

Finding various alleged faults in both Whittle’s design and a single calculation, the Air Ministry conceded that “the internal combustion turbine will almost certainly be developed into a successful engine, but before this can be done, the performance of both compressors and turbines will have to be greatly improved. However, it has been of real interest to investigate your scheme, and any suggestion submitted by people in the Service is always welcome.” 

The decision to reject Whittle’s design would eventually have huge ramifications for both Whittle and the UK government, as well as the rising tensions within Europe that would ultimately lead to World War Two.  

Pat Johnson remained convinced of the validity of Whittle’s design, leading to it being patented in January 1930. Whittle thereby fully retained the design rights to his engine, and subsequent meetings were held with various commercial organizations where interest in his design was raised, although no deals for funding were forthcoming by which it could be developed further.  

Alongside his flight instruction duties, Whittle attended the RAF’s Officers School of Engineering in 1932. Obtaining an average of 98% in all subjects in his entrance exam, this allowed Whittle to complete a shortened one-year course. Following the successful completion of this course, Whittle decided to take a two-year engineering course at Peterhouse College at the University of Cambridge in the UK, graduating in 1936 with a first-class degree in Mechanical Science. There remains a historic plaque commemorating Whittle’s attendance outside the University’s School of Engineering to this day.  

The birth of Power Jets

Upon his graduation from Cambridge, Whittle was granted a further year to develop his design by the RAF. However, without additional funding, Whittle was unable to renew the patent on his design, which duly lapsed, opening it up to others to potentially develop further, thereby presenting a risk.  

However, through a string of serendipitous meetings with former RAF contacts, Whittle formed a partnership with two retired RAF servicemen, with Whittle retaining half of the shares of the new partnership. The plan was that the firm would be better placed to seek commercial funding for the Whittle design with some form of proper organizational setup behind it.  

Following a series of unsuccessful meetings to secure funding, the partnership eventually found favor with a specialist investment bank that had a leaning towards more risky ventures in September 1935. The bank agreed to fund the development of Whittle’s design, and with that deal finalized, the future of the Whittle jet engine was secured, and the course of aviation history changed forever.  

Through a three-way partnership negotiated between the investment bank, the Air Ministry, plus Whittle and his two partners, a new company by the name of Power Jets was established. Whittle and the partners retained 49% while the bank invested an initial £2,000 ($2,680) with the option of a further £18,000 ($24,120) within 18 months. 

As Whittle was still a full-time RAF officer, he required special permission to work outside his RAF duties and was limited to dedicating just six hours a week to Power Jets. However, as Whittle had been allowed an additional year at Cambridge to continue post-graduate studies, this restriction had little practical effect. 

While the RAF continued its own jet engine development work alongside Power Jets, the others in the company set about building a prototype engine to demonstrate its viability and effectiveness. By the end of 1936, in a factory owned by the British company Thompson-Houston located near Coventry (Whittle’s hometown), the prototype was almost ready for its first test run, which had also been produced well within the £2,000 initial budget. 

Germany enters the jet arena

By this stage, two leading German aerospace engineers (Herbert Wagner at Junkers and Hans von Ohain at Heinkel) had begun developing their own jet turbine engine. While for many years, it was suspected that the work in Germany had developed on the back of Whittle’s patent being allowed to lapse, the Germans always denied this. The German Ministry of Aviation had been far more supportive of von Ohain’s new design, unlike the RAF with Whittle’s a few years earlier, and development of the first jet-powered airplane continued apace in that country while it lumbered on in the UK.  

Despite further setbacks, including the RAF backing a rival jet engine design produced by someone who had been following Whittle’s work with Power Jets closely, the company proceeded with its own development work, almost to the point of bankruptcy. In July 1937, the company was provided with an emergency loan of £250 by the bank to keep it in business. This would once again prove to be a turning point in the fortunes of Whittle and his engine design. 

Following a glowing report by one of Whittle’s industry contacts that was sent to the Air Ministry, the latter decided to show more interest in the work being done by Whittle and invested a further £5,000 ($6,700) into the research and development fund to produce a flyable version of Whittle’s engine, by then known as the Power Jets WU (Whittle Unit).  

Throughout the late 1930s, work proceeded with the Power Jets WU, although by this stage, the Germans were far ahead in terms of their development. While the Germans had their own setbacks with developing a jet engine, they would eventually beat the UK into the air with the first jet-powered airplane, a Heinkel He 178, and later a Messerschmitt 262, by nine crucial months.  

Launched into Luftwaffe service towards the end of WW2, the Me 262 could fly significantly faster than its Allied counterparts, with far better firepower. Me 262s were credited with the downing of at least 542 Allied aircraft before the end of the war, leaving the RAF kicking themselves that they had not embraced and supported Whittle’s initial design years previously.  

Ultimately, the lack of funding for Whittle’s project, along with a dithering lack of interest or support over many years displayed by the RAF had cost the UK a vital head start in the race to build a usable jet engine  – issues that would all come back and bite the UK government as World War Two began in 1939. 

First flight 

Eventually, despite further setbacks and many late nights, all of which adversely affected Whittle’s mental health, Power Jets was able to refine its design far enough to produce a flyable engine to be embedded inside a Gloster Aircraft E28/39 development testbed. The aircraft began taxi testing on April 7, 1941, at Brockworth Airfield in the west of England. Then, on May 15, 1941, the Whittle-powered E.28/39 took off from RAF Cranwell, flying for 17 minutes and reaching a maximum speed of around 340 mph (545 km/h).  

Within days and after further test flights, the aircraft was flying at 370 mph (600 km/h) at 25,000 feet (7,600 m), far outperforming the Supermarine Spitfire, the RAF’s fastest aircraft at the time. With the performance of the aircraft and Whittle’s engine design now proven, various other major British aerospace companies, including Rolls-Royce, the British Aeroplane Company (BAC), and Hawker-Siddeley, all became interested in embracing the technology further.   

Throughout WW2, these companies developed jet-powered aircraft further. Whittle himself worked on more powerful examples of his design to give them greater application possibilities. The RAF commissioned the design of a new combat jet that would be powered by Whittle-designed engines in the form of the Gloster Meteor, although this type would barely make an impact in RAF service before the end of the war came in June 1945. 

In June 1942, with his reputation now preceding him, Whittle was invited to visit various aerospace companies in the US, including Bell Aircraft and General Electric. The purpose of the tour was for Whittle to share his knowledge to expedite the understanding of jet-powered flight among the Americans, so that their jet aircraft programs could accelerate. 

Further development – the high bypass engine 

Even with the Gloster Meteor in service and with various aerospace companies around the world, Whittle did not rest on his laurels. Wanting to improve the efficiency of the jet engine further, even at lower speeds, Whittle devised a unique way of ‘gearing down‘ his jet engine, that is to convert a low-mass high-velocity jet such as the Meteor, into a high-mass low-velocity jet that might be capable of powering larger aircraft in the future.  

Whittle devised a method using an additional turbine to extract energy from the jet and use this energy to drive a low-pressure compressor or a large fan at the front of the engine which was able to ‘breathe’ far more air than the jet engine itself and forcing this additional air rearwards as a ‘cold jet’.  

His newly completed system became known as a turbofan engine, commonly used even today on large military and commercial aircraft. The design consisted of an additional turbine in the exhaust of the main engine, creating a two-stage powerplant. A third stage was later added, with specially-shaped turbine blades located outside of the engine core, which increased the ‘bypass ratio’ of the engine by around three to four times, paving the way for the production of large-scale jet turbine engines that would go on to power larger aircraft in the future. 

As the war continued, the RAF had by 1944 realized its earlier mistake by ignoring Whittle and the work of Power Jets. The company was eventually nationalized, with Whittle and his two partners receiving payments for their shares, but with the intellectual right to the designs passing to the UK government. Meanwhile, Whittle had managed to retain his employment with the RAF alongside his development work and had reached the rank of Squadron Leader by the end of WW2.  

Post-war Whittle 

In the years following the end of the war, aerospace companies around the globe had taken Whittle’s technology and began building their own jet turbine engines for a variety of aviation applications. 

Whittle, however, was suffering from exhaustion as well as the burden of the belief that had the RAF supported his designs earlier, many aircrews’ lives (along with those of others who died in WW2) might have been saved. He reached the rank of Air Commodore before finally being discharged from the RAF on medical grounds in 1948 

Nevertheless, Whittle continued working, finding employment with several British aerospace companies throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, as well as receiving a number of major awards and titles. He was made a Knight of the British Empire in 1948, enabling him to use the title of ‘Sir’ before his name, the highest honor available to British citizens.  

Whittle eventually divorced his first wife and remarried an American, settling in the US and taking up a role as a Research Professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, close to where he now lived. His further research focused on atmospherics before he went part-time in 1976, eventually retiring from all paid work in 1979. During his professorship, Whittle wrote a textbook entitled ‘Gas Turbine Aero-thermodynamics: With Special Reference to Aircraft Propulsion,’ which was published in 1981. 

Ironically, in the years since the end of WW2, Whittle and his German counterpart, Hans von Ohain, would occasionally cross paths at various institutions and while giving lectures at venues across the world. Although initially under the impression that von Ohain had only been able to develop his jet engine after seeing the detail of Whittle’s design once its patent had expired, he eventually changed his view on this, with the two men becoming close friends as they toured the US, giving talks together. 

In one conversation between the two, many years after the war, von Ohain is alleged to have said to Whittle, “If you had been given the money, you would have been six years ahead of us. If Hitler or Goering had heard that there is a man in England who flies 500 mph in a small experimental plane and that it is coming into development, it is likely that World War Two would not have come into being.” 

Sir Frank Whittle died at his home in Columbia, Maryland, from lung cancer on August 9, 1996. While he was cremated in the US, his ashes were returned to England, where they were placed in a memorial in a church close to RAF Cranwell, where Whittle’s RAF journey had begun 73 years earlier.   

Conclusion  

Regardless of who flew the first jet-powered aircraft. Sir Frank Whittle is still considered by most to this day to be the ‘father of the jet engine’. After all, it was Whittle who first devised and patented the concept of compressing a gas and setting alight to it to produce thrust that first captured the attention of many, although sadly not of those in the RAF or the UK Air Ministry who mattered at the time, despite the spectre of World War Two looming increasingly large on the horizon.   

So, the next time you are heading away somewhere in a commercial jet aircraft, as those huge turbofan engines spool up at the end of the runway, propelling you and perhaps hundreds of other people into the air, spare a thought for the long hours of toil, and the stress, but overall the pioneering spirit that got you there in the first place.    

Registered F-WTSB, the aircraft played a key role in the certification process in obtaining an airworthiness certificate and ensuring it was safe to fly.  

The aircraft was proceeded by two prototypes and two pre-production Concorde that are now housed near the runways at Paris Orly Airport (ORY) and at the Imperial War Museum in Duxford, UK. 

Sierra Bravo never flew commercially but its place in history in terms of development, route planning and data gathering is unquestionable. 

On May 5, 2025, the French Ministry of Culture, announced that Sierra Bravo and all its equipment have been classified as historic monuments following discussions between members of the National Commission for Heritage and Architecture. 

“This decision by the Minister of Culture marks the culmination of the process initiated following the extensive investigation conducted to analyze the aircraft’s characteristics. It recognizes the public interest in its preservation and the special place that the development of Concorde occupies in international aeronautical memory, following the Franco-British agreement of November 29, 1962, aimed at designing the first supersonic civil transport aircraft,” said a spokesperson for the ministry.  

Since 2014, Sierra Bravo has been one of two aircraft preserved and displayed at the Aéroscopia site in Blagnac, Toulouse.  

The aircraft, which is owned by Toulouse Air and Space Academy (AAE), an association founded by the first Concorde pilot André Turcat, has retained all its equipment and testing devices, its cockpit, and its engineer’s station. 

J’annonce le classement au titre des monuments historiques de l’avion Concorde n° 1 et de l'ensemble de ses équipements. Cet avion a incarné la force industrielle et la capacité d’innovation de la France sur le plan aéronautique. Il a été aussi un symbole de notre capacité de… pic.twitter.com/KcXZ5Ubaxv

— Rachida Dati ن (@datirachida) May 5, 2025

Of the 20 aircraft built between 1967 and 1979, 18 are preserved to this day, including six in France. Sierra Bravo made its first flight on December 6, 1973, and its last on May 26, 1982. 

“This aircraft embodied France’s industrial strength and capacity for innovation in the aeronautical field. It was also a symbol of our capacity for international cooperation. This aircraft, a pioneer of supersonic flight, is remembered fondly,” said the Minister of Culture Rachida Dati. 

She added: “Its preservation will allow us to pass on to future generations a unique example of our aeronautical know-how, with a futuristic vision.” 

Sierra Bravo joins Château de Chambord and Palace of Versailles as official French historical monuments and will now be entitled to state funding to assist with conservation work. 

Operated by the Dallas-Fort Worth Wing of the Commemorative Air Force (CAF) and based in Lancaster in the US state of Texas, the aircraft arrived at the Imperial War Museum (IWM) airfield at Duxford near Cambridge, UK, on Monday, April 28 April 2025, after its approximately 4,800-mile (7,680km) ferry flight from Texas. Duxford Airfield was itself a front-line WW2 air base, hosting various squadrons of Royal Air Force Spitfires and Hurricanes, as well as other types.

The ferry flight to the UK made multiple stopovers in New Orleans (Louisiana), Pensacola (Florida), Charleston (South Carolina), Norfolk (Virginia), Washington, DC, New York, Presque Isle (Maine), Goose Bay (Canada), Narsarsuaq (Greenland), Reykjavik (Iceland), and finally Duxford (England). A planned refuelling stop in Wick (Scotland) was not required due to favorable winds.

The vintage plane will be based in the UK for several weeks, using IWM Duxford as a base from where it will travel to various air shows and commemorative events across the UK and Europe before returning to the US.

The C-47/R4D differed from the civilian DC-3 in numerous ways, including being fitted with a cargo door, hoist attachment, and reinforced floor, along with a shortened tail cone for glider-towing shackles, and an astrodome in the cabin roof. During World War II, the armed forces of many countries used the C-47, modified DC-3s for the transport of troops, cargo, and wounded. More than 10,000 aircraft were produced in Long Beach and Santa Monica (California), and Oklahoma City (Oklahoma). Between March 1943 and August 1945, the Oklahoma City plant produced 5,354 C-47s alone.

Carrying the aircraft name, ‘Ready 4 Duty’ (after its US Navy designation R4D), the aircraft will not only be attending these events to commemorate all the US servicemen and women who lost their lives during WW2, but will also be welcoming visitors onto the aircraft during various attendances to showcase how such aircraft were used for various roles during the War in staggering numbers.

Ready 4 Duty originally entered service with the US Navy in 1944 and is powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney radial piston engines, each producing 1,200 hp of thrust. The aircraft has a cruise speed of 150mph (240 kph) and a range of 1,200 miles (1,920km).

During its tour of Europe, lasting from April 15, 2025, until it returns to Texas on July 4, 2025, in time for the Independence Day celebrations in the US, the aircraft is scheduled to visit seven countries and make 30 appearances at various air shows, which started with a visits to Eindhoven and Gilze en Rijen in the Netherlands over the weekend of May 4 and 5, 2025. The aircraft is expected to appear in front of over 250,000 members of the public during its time in the UK and Europe. The tour has been given the name ‘Navy to Victory Tour’ of 2025.

“With the youngest WW2 veteran now 97 years old, the window to honor these men and women is closing quickly. Navy to Victory is our way to help them take flight one more time,” said Christopher Volpe, DFW Wing Leader of CAF.

“The Navy to Victory Tour is a heartfelt tribute to the countless allied sailors and airmen who served with courage and conviction during the Second World War. This commemorative mission embodies the transatlantic bonds forged in the fight for freedom and remains a cornerstone in our shared history, “ added David Oliver, the President and CEO of CAF.

Inside ‘Ready 4 Duty’

While on the Navy to Victory Tour, Ready 4 Duty will also give passenger flights, while the crew will offer ground tours of the aircraft. On display inside the aircraft will be a variety of unique artifacts from a dozen surviving WW2-era navy warships, including aircraft carriers, battleships, and cruisers, which have been curated together as a single collection for the first time since the end of WW2.  

The airplane cabin display also contains replica depth charges of the same type that the R4D used on anti-submarine patrols in WW2. It also contains a first aid station equipped with stretchers, a radio room, a navigator’s station, and unparalleled views of the vintage flight deck.  

Back in Texas, the aircraft is regularly used by CAF for heritage and paratrooper flights as well as attending commemorative events. It even operates regular experience flights for the public during the summer months each year.

However, there’s one type of unruly passenger behavior that doesn’t generate as much commotion, yet still causes disruption and safety risks to flights: in-flight smoking, which is categorized as an unruly passenger non-compliance incident.

According to an International Air Transport Association (IATA) safety report published in 2023, the smoking of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, vapes and puff devices in the cabin or lavatories is one of the most common unruly passenger incident types under non-compliance.

Unlike other forms of unruly passenger behavior, though, smoking on flights was once allowed, even encouraged. So why do people still try to smoke inside planes despite the act being prohibited on all commercial flights since 2000? And why do new aircraft still have ashtrays?

Let’s first take a look at the history of in-flight smoking to see how this act, once considered glamorous, became prohibited, and why, despite regulations, it remains irresistible to some. 

Smoking in flights

From the 1920s all the way through to the 50s, smoking was mistakenly thought to have almost no negative consequences on health. When mass production of pre-rolled cigarettes arrived during the last quarter of the 19th Century, a number of anti-tobacco campaigns discovered that smoking caused stunted growth in children and was harmful to pregnant women. 

At the same time, major tobacco companies actively engaged with physicians to use them in marketing and counter these negative discoveries being made about smoking.

American brand Lucky Strike was one of the pioneering cigarette companies of the 1920s and one of the first to engage doctors to promote cigarettes, along with physician-backed claims that smoking protected the throat from irritation.

Traditionally, doctors held authority, and patients trusted their expertise. As cigarette health concerns arose, tobacco companies strategically used the powerful phrase "doctors recommend" from the 1930s to the 1950s, associating it with cigarettes. Despite cigarettes causing… pic.twitter.com/8ZhEo7YnFM

— History Photographed (@HistoryInPics) November 28, 2023

With the heavy and aggressive marketing of doctors promoting smoking, the technique became widely accepted for decades.

Upon the arrival of the Golden Age of Hollywood, along with the emergence of civil aviation as the latest frontier (1930s-50s), tobacco companies turned to these two industries for marketing. As a result, smoking and cigarettes became not just socially acceptable: they were now openly associated with glamour, sophistication and adventure. 

From the 1950s to 1970s, smoking was extremely commonplace on flights. Indeed, complimentary sample cigarette packs, complete with airline branding, were often given away by flight attendants.

Trans World Airlines (TWA) was the second US airline to fly the Boeing 707-300 jet. TWA, which ceased operations in 2001 when it merged with American Airlines, branded their B707 jets as ‘StarStream Jets’ and commemorated the launch of B707 operations in 1959 with a branded cigarette sampler, distributed on flights and in airport lounges.

Image: Famri.org

In 1963, the marketing division of the R.J Reynolds Tobacco Company proposed the idea of providing free samples of its cigarettes at 50 military bases and 15 airlines, with personalized branding.

As seen in this 1956 ad for Vickers Viscount, a British medium-range turboprop airliner which operated from 1948-2009, cigarette packs could be part of an in-flight meal tray, along with coffee, bread rolls and dessert.

This 1965 ad for Newport Cigarettes shows not only passengers but also an aircraft pilot smoking during a flight, casually mentioning to his co-pilot that the new menthol cigarettes by Newport had a “fresh” taste. 

As much as smoking was encouraged during those years, airlines still had policies when it came to  smoking cigarettes inside the aircraft.

The University of Alabama published an undated page sample of an airline’s smoking policy. This document can be found at the Louis A. Turpen Aviation Museum and Library in San Francisco.

Based on the document, smoking was only allowed during a flight’s cruising altitude, unless the flight was under “hazardous conditions” or the No Smoking sign was on.

Up in smoke: the end of the smoking era

How did smoking go from being encouraged to prohibited on flights? 

The link between smoking and deteriorating health problems, particularly lung cancer, only became widespread in 1964 when US Surgeon General Luther Terry published a report on smoking and health. 

According to the report, in June 1961 the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the National Tuberculosis Association, and the American Public Health Association addressed a letter to President John F. Kennedy, in which they called for a national commission on smoking, dedicated to “seeking a solution to this health problem that would interfere least with the freedom of industry or the happiness of individuals”.

In 1967, a number of US airlines discontinued the distribution of free cigarettes along with meals, due to complaints from non-smokers, physicians and members of the US Congress.

Some airlines, such as American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines, decided to provide cigarettes only upon request, and TWA discontinued the handing out of free cigarettes. 

During this time, passengers were still allowed to smoke on flights using their own cigarettes.

In August 1971, American Airlines became the first carrier to create non-smoking sections inside its aircraft. It first debuted the concept on its flights from New York John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), providing three rows inside the aircraft where smoking was not permitted.

According to the organization Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), passengers loved the idea of a non-smoking section. American Airlines then extended the practice on more destinations, increasing the non-smoking area to more rows, then half the cabin, until the entire cabin became a smoke-free zone many years later.

Between the years of 1976-1988, the US government engaged in a decade-long push and pull battle with tobacco companies to eradicate smoking on flights. In 1976, the now-defunct US Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) banned tobacco and cigar smoking on US flights, but ended up relaxing the ban in 1978 due to pressures from giant tobacco firms. 

Congressional action in 1987 finally paved the way to ban smoking on flights. In 1988. US airlines banned smoking on domestic flights lasting less than two hours. In 1990, the ban was extended to all domestic flights under six hours. 

In 2000, groups of flight attendants sought legal damages for diseases they believed had been caused by their long-term exposure to tobacco smoke in airline cabins. 

As a result of the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of non-smoking flight attendants in October 1991 against cigarette manufacturers, the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (FAMRI) was formed. 

Currently, FAMRI sponsors scientific and medical research on the prevention, early detection and treatment of health problems caused by exposure to tobacco smoke. FAMRI also educates health care providers about diseases related to second-hand smoke.

In 2000, smoking was finally banned on all domestic and international flights in the US.

Other airlines and countries all over the world followed suit. Airlines in Japan banned smoking on international flights in March 1999; Turkish Airlines also prohibited smoking on all its flights in the same year. In 1997, the European Union (EU) prohibited smoking on all flights for its member countries. Australia banned smoking on all of its flights from 1996.

The last two countries to place a ban on in-flight smoking were Cuba (in 2014), and China, which only announced a ban on smoking on all flights in 2017 and still gave its airlines two years to comply.

Why are ashtrays still part of newly manufactured aircraft?

If smoking has been banned in domestic and international commercial flights in the majority of the world since the year 2000, then why do we still find ashtrays even on newly-manufactured aircraft?

A 2022 study shared by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that while some individuals follow norms and regulations, a number of individuals are still tempted to break organized rules, especially when the act is beneficial to them. In other words, people will still violate and break rules and regulations.

Airlines and governing organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and IATA are aware of this, which is why ashtrays are still found on aircraft both as a safety measure and a reminder that smoking is in fact not allowed – despite the confusing message this might send. 

Ultimately, it is better to have safe disposal of cigarettes in the event that the non-smoking rule is violated, rather than risk a disaster such as a fire starting in the cabin.

Currently, ashtrays are part of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)’s Minimum Equipment List (MEL) for an aircraft to operate.  

An ICAO Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is a document that is developed by the aircraft operator and approved by their national airworthiness authority, that specifies which equipment can be inoperative under certain conditions while still allowing an aircraft to operate safely. 

Can you smoke on private planes?

Ideally, smoking should not happen on any type of flight, but the answer to this question is yes.

Steve Varsano, founder and CEO of The Jet Business and part of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Board of Trustees, provided a very simple explanation.

@thejetbusiness #stevevarsano #thejetbusiness #privatejet ♬ original sound – The Jet Business

Varsano said that flying on a commercial plane is the same as being in an office building or a restaurant–you’re in a public space, that’s why passengers have to adhere to rules.

Flying on a private plane is like driving your own car instead of taking public transport, so you can indeed do anything you want – including smoke.

Even the world’s longest passenger air service today, Singapore Airlines’ daily flight from Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) in New York to Singapore Changi Airport (SIN), a flight that covers 9,534 miles (15,255 km) and lasts around 18 hours and 40 minutes, barely comes close to taking the crown of the longest commercial flight in history.

With Australian airline Qantas proposing to operate the world’s first non-stop commercial flights from Sydney to London in 2027, a distance of 10,573 miles (16,916 km) and lasting around 20 hours, these flights will still not steal the crown from another Qantas flight that operated toward the latter stages of World War Two.

Known as the ‘Double Sunrise‘ flights, these flights lasted up to 33 hours in the air, long enough for passengers to observe two sunrises as they cruised toward their final destination. AeroTime explores the history of the Double Sunrise operation, the unique aircraft that was used to operate it, and why it is unlikely to ever be surpassed as the world’s longest-ever passenger-carrying service (in terms of duration).

Background

In 1943, with war raging across various theaters worldwide, commercial air services had largely been suspended. However, during that year, a unique operation was started under the auspices of a commercial airline service which remains the longest passenger airline service ever operated to this day in terms of flying hours.

The flights, given the nickname of the Double Sunrise operation, were inaugurated in 1943 to re-establish the vital diplomatic air link between Australia to England  – a connection that had been lost due to the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942. Singapore had been not only an allied stronghold in the region but a vital stopping-off point for flights between the UK and Australia.

While there was still a need for passengers to be able to travel between the two countries located on opposite sides of the world, there was also a requirement for mail, diplomatic papers, and other goods to be transported between the UK and Australia (and vice versa). As allies in the war and being closely cooperating nations under the banner of the Commonwealth, the two countries had benefited from decent pre-war air links for many years, started by Imperial Airways and Qantas Empire Airways in 1935.

Following secret discussions held between the two nations’ governments, as well as the leaders of their respective armed forces, it was decided that Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel would be seconded to a new special division of the Australian national airline Qantas to be set up to operate flights to restore the air link between the UK and Australia, albeit using a different routing and bypassing Singapore.

The new dedicated division of the RAAF was eventually tasked to fly Consolidated PBY Catalina flying boats from Western Australia to a Royal Air Force (RAF) base located at Lake Koggala in southern Ceylon in the Indian Ocean. Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) remained a heavily fortified British colony throughout WWII and was considered a haven where the Catalina service could operate to and from without enemy interference. Onward flights could then be operated from Ceylon to the Middle East, Europe, and ultimately to London, where the service would terminate several days later.  

The Catalinas used for the Double Sunrise operation were all originally acquired by the UK Air Ministry from the US under a Lend-Lease arrangement for use by the Royal Air Force in various roles, including anti-submarine missions, coastal surveillance and reconnaissance, and maritime search and rescue.

Five Catalina aircraft would eventually be supplied to the RAAF by the Air Ministry, with each allocated a name that matched stars used for navigation along the routes of the long flights, including ‘Rigel Star’, ‘Spica Star’, ‘Altair Star’, ‘Vega Star’, and ‘Antares Star’. Interestingly, all five aircraft remained registered to BOAC in the UK while flying for Qantas.

Despite the new flights effectively being operated by the RAAF, they would be flown using the Qantas name and brand with the few seats available on each flight being sold to commercial fare-paying customers.

About the route

Having carefully weighed up the options to establish a new air link between Australia and Ceylon, the authorities decided to use an existing RAAF seaplane base located in Crawley, close to Perth, in Western Australia. Here, the flights would operate to the Royal Air Force base at Lake Koggala close to the major city of Galle in Ceylon.  

The Double Sunrise route would later be extended to serve Karachi in British India (now part of Pakistan). Karachi was at that time the southernmost point on the vital empire route from London, operated at that stage by British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), a predecessor to British Airways.

Once up and running, the flights to Ceylon became the longest non-stop air route of any airline at that time in terms of duration. Covering a distance of a little over 3,500 nautical miles (4,020 statute miles or 6,480 km), the route was almost entirely flown over the Indian Ocean, with almost none of the flight operating over land.

The specific route flown by the Catalinas was from the Crawley RAAF seaplane base to the town of Exmouth, Western Australia. There, the aircraft would head out on its long oceanic flight, making for Cocos Island or Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean, before tracking directly to Galle in Ceylon (denoted on the map below as KCT).

With the Catalina having a relatively low cruising speed of around 125 mph (200 kph), each flight would take anything between 27 and 33 hours, depending on the winds along the route. The departure from Western Australia would be meticulously planned later in the evening so that the aircraft would fly over Japanese-occupied territories in East Asia during the hours of darkness, giving the flights a degree of conspicuity.

Given the timings of the westbound flights to Ceylon, the passengers onboard would observe two sunrises as they were airborne for so long, hence the nickname. Once the Double Sunrise service was established, the operation ran weekly in either direction, allowing the crews time to rest and recover in Ceylon before heading back to Australia.

initially, an onward connection between Galle and Karachi (denoted as KHI on the map above) was offered to passengers using lengthy and rather precarious surface transport. However, in due course, and in the interests of time, this was soon replaced with the Catalinas flying onwards from Galle to Karachi to meet up with the weekly BOAC service from London to Karachi to provide a complete UK to Australia air bridge.

Qantas eventually gave the Double Sunrise operation the official name of the ‘Kangaroo Service‘, and the flight also marked the first time that Qantas’s now-famous ‘Flying Kangaroo‘ logo was used on the side of an aircraft – a tradition that continues today.

About the Qantas Catalinas

With the requirement for an aircraft that could sustain lengthy over-water operations, often in harsh flying conditions, the rugged PBY Catalina was ideally suited for the role, and luckily, the RAF had a handful to spare. Due to their design, including an expansive fuel tank embedded within the aircraft’s enormous wing (spanning 35 meters or 104 feet), the aircraft had been specifically designed by the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation in the US to fly long over-water missions.

Their ability to operate from water runways gave them added operational flexibilities that conventional aircraft did not have, by eradicating the requirement for paved runways at physical airfields.

Having been stripped of all non-essential equipment for the ultra-long flights, including all unnecessary de-icing equipment and cabin insulation, the average take-off weight for the Catalinas was around 35,000 lbs (16,000kg). Given that the maximum take-off weight for the Catalina is 35,400 lbs (16,100kg), including a maximum fuel load of 1,988 imperial gallons (9,040 liters), the Double Sunrise Catalina operated as close to their maximum range as it was possible to get.

This fuel load gave the Catalinas a range of 4,140 miles (6,700 km). With the Double Sunrise route covering around 4,100 miles (6,630 km), the margins were slim. With no possibility of air-to-air refueling and with no en-route refueling points available,  the payload on the nonstop Catalina flights was severely limited. The average load on each flight was just three passengers and 69kg (159 lbs) of essential and often sensitive mail and diplomatic papers.

Additionally, the record-breaking flights were operated without radios, as long-range wireless radiotelephonic equipment had not yet been adequately developed to provide coverage over large swathes of ocean. Without adequate radio navigation equipment, the flight crews operating the flights had to rely on rudimentary navigation techniques including celestial navigation (using stars as navigational tools) alongside maps and compasses to navigate their course, with an onboard navigator as part of the crew providing these services to the pilots.

In total, The Double Sunrise Catalinas made 271 crossings in each direction between July 1943 and June 1945. During that time, the flights carried 860 passengers and delivered over 4,500 kg (10,000 lb) of essential mail items.

What happened to the Catalinas involved?

In 1944, Qantas augmented the Catalinas deployed on the Double Sunrise route with converted Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber aircraft, freed up as the war effort began to wind down. The Liberators were able to fly a shorter 3,077-mile  (4,952 km) route from an RAAF airfield near Learmonth, Western Australia to an RAF base northeast of Colombo, the capital of Ceylon.

However, with a faster cruise speed and improved payload, the Liberators could perform the journey in 17 hours carrying 2,500 kg (5,500 pounds ) of payload. Eventually, in July 1945 and with the War over, both types were replaced by Avro Lancastrians, converted from wartime Avro Lancaster bombers into passenger-carrying roles.

With their unique task dutifully and successfully completed, there would be no pomp or ceremony to mark the special achievements of the five Double Sunrise Catalinas. Despite having set a new record for the world’s longest commercial air service, a record that still stands eight decades later), the aircraft deployed on the flights were quietly retired from service.

With the war over, neither the RAF nor the RAAF had any further use for the aircraft, so as prescribed under the terms of the original supply contract with the UK Air Ministry, each was unceremoniously scrapped by scuttling (being deliberately sunk).

Secret order of the Double Sunrise

All 870 passengers who were able to experience flying on the Qantas Double Sunrise flights were handed a certificate upon their arrival in Ceylon. Displaying an image of a Catalina on its face, the unique certificates declared the holder of having entered the role of the ‘The ‘Secret Order of the Double Sunrise‘. The certificates were issued not only as a memento of their record-breaking flight but also to mark that the holder was one of only a few people in the world who had been on a commercial flight that had exceeded 24 hours in duration.

In commemoration of the ground-breaking Double Sunrise wartime flights, when Qantas first mooted the possibility of nonstop flights between Sydney and London in August 2017 using ultra-long-range Airbus A350s, the program was given the working title of ‘Project Sunrise’ – a moniker that has since become synonymous with the program.

Additionally, the lucky few passengers who had the opportunity to travel on a trial nonstop flight from Sydney to London operated by a Qantas Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner in November  2019, were each handed a replica ‘Secret Order of the Double Sunrise’ certificate as a historic nod to the airtime efforts of the Qantas Catalina, the brave airmen that operated them, and a bygone era of record-breaking air travel.

Long-haul flights of tomorrow

Despite the numerous wartime challenges faced by all those who devised the Double Sunrise flights, along with the elite airmanship and dedication of the crews that operated them, the landmark Double Sunrise operation effectively paved the way for the development of modern long-distance commercial air travel – a privilege that many of us continue to enjoy decades later.

When the first of Qantas’ Project Sunrise flights finally takes off from Sydney’s Kingsford Smith International Airport (SYD) in early 2027, the minds of those on board will no doubt turn to the endeavor and resilience of the aircrews and passengers that made it all possible. As those modern-day Double Sunrise passengers take their first sip of the complimentary champagne on that celebratory flight, may they raise their glass to their contemporaries who went before.       

In the modern era, a long-haul flight involves sitting in a relatively safe, warm modern airliner with all the creature comforts that you have come to expect. Hot meals, USB charging ports, dimmable window blinds, and as many inflight movies that the passengers can consume as they while away the hours before they land are just a few of the amenities that passengers can avail of during their journey.

However, spending hour after hour crossing the ocean in a noisy, unheated, cramped, and minimally equipped Catalina flying boat would not have been an enjoyable experience, and those who flew on the original Double Sunrise flights were true aviation pioneers.

In terms of the aircraft, although the dedicated fleet of five Qantas Catalinas is long gone, the type’s place in the aviation history books is secured, with its enduring legacy cemented through its numerous key roles during WWII. With around 3,300 Catalinas built (of all variants) but only around ten airworthy examples remaining worldwide, its ability to conquer vast distances and fly longer than any other aircraft of its generation has confirmed the Catalina’s place in aviation history.

And with the feasibility of any two cities anywhere on the planet being connected by modern airliners in less than 24 hours nowadays, the Catalina’s record for the longest-ever commercial air service is unlikely to be broken.

However, despite the advancement of commercial aircraft livery design and application, a trend has evolved whereby airlines have been revisiting old liveries and re-applying them to modern aircraft. Reproducing nostalgic color schemes worn by fleet members in years gone by and revitalizing the spirit of yesteryear has become increasingly popular in the commercial airline space, with more carriers embracing the concept of the ‘retrojet’, as they have become more commonly known, than ever before.

In this article, AeroTime looks at the developments in airline livery design that have led us to where the industry is today and takes a closer look at how the retrojet concept has been transformed from a simple idea into an industry-wide phenomenon.

Airline livery trends – a brief history

Airline companies paint their aircraft in unique liveries to promote their company and its brand, and to differentiate them from the competition. But while the modern-day livery has become a work of art (in many cases), this has not always been the case. From largely bare metal aircraft with a few selected areas painted, largely to prevent corrosion, to the vibrant displays seen on commercial aircraft today, things have certainly come a long way over the past 90 years or so.

From the birth of passenger aviation in the 1920s until the end of World War Two,  airlines operated with remarkably simple liveries, largely comprising little more than the airline name, possibly a small logo, and aircraft registration. In those early days, aircraft paint was both expensive and heavy, plus techniques for getting paint to adhere to smooth aluminum surfaces were rudimentary. Therefore, most aircraft of the age featured bare metal finishes and little else.

Throughout the late 20th century, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, cheatlines emerged as the main feature of aircraft livery design. The term cheatline refers to a decorative colored stripe painted across the fuselage of the aircraft, which was often applied across the window line of the fuselage, giving the aircraft a more streamlined look (consider Pan Am or even Virgin Atlantic’s first scheme).

The trend developed later into using cheatlines that only run partly along the fuselage, providing an artistic twist to the trend. Some airlines, such as American Airlines, used a three-colors-in-one cheatline design, using red, white, and blue elements to portray the company’s patriotism.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the wider use of vibrant colors and designs in airline liveries began to take off. The birth of the ‘Eurowhite’ trend saw increasing numbers of airlines use predominately white fuselages with just a splash of color on the tail, engines, and winglets to promote their brands. This trend even continues today,  with countless airlines worldwide adopting this approach, which also facilitates the transfer of aircraft between carriers or from leasing firms to airlines with minimal repainting costs.

The trend since 2010 in particular has been the use of the ‘billboard’ style lettering along the side of the fuselage across the window line, with numerous airlines adopting this approach. Just a few modern-day examples of this trend include JetBlue, Air India, Virgin Atlantic, Emirates, and Icelandair.   

More recently, some carriers have completely gone their own way in terms of aircraft color schemes. While many airlines have embraced the phenomenon of commemorative schemes highlighting everything from soccer teams, global EXPO events, sponsorship deals, and others, some airlines have taken advantage of new advanced technology color paints, choosing to paint their whole aircraft in a single stand-out color – such examples including Spirit Airlines and PLAY Airlines.

With new paint technology and the increasing use of decals (adhesive stickers that can be applied to almost any part of an airframe to depict imagery or additional color), there can be little doubt that airline livery design will continue to evolve in the future.

The birth of the retrojet

The 1980s saw the wholesale beginnings of a whole new trend in aircraft livery design – the so-called ‘retrojet’. This trend started slowly, gathering both pace and popularity in the 1990s and 2000s as airlines worldwide began to celebrate key milestones or anniversaries in their history, while others realized the marketing and publicity potential of revisiting former color schemes and playing on the consumer’s nostalgic subconscious.

The retrojet concept has nowadays been widely adopted, with many airlines now having at least one of its aircraft flying around wearing a livery that the airline phased out possibly decades ago. The launch of a new retrojet scheme presents a whole new opportunity for the airline to self-publicize, using various means including social media platforms to showcase their ‘new-old’ design and capture the imagination of potentially millions of travelers.

From the smallest airline to the world’s largest carriers, retrojets have been used as an integral part of ongoing marketing efforts, with retrojets being used for publicity and marketing purposes as well as continuing to fly revenue passenger flights. With modern passenger aircraft requiring a full repaint every few years, many airlines see this as an opportunity to repaint the plane into a retro scheme, thereby avoiding the cost of taking an aircraft out of service simply to apply a nostalgia-laden livery.

We will now take a whistle-stop tour of some of the most iconic airline retrojet schemes that have adorned commercial passenger planes in recent years. While this list is not intended to be exhaustive, and other retrojet schemes can be found, it gives a flavor of just how widespread the use of retrojet schemes has become – a trend that currently shows no signs of abating.

North America

Several airlines across North America have embraced the retrojet trend over the years, with some airlines even presenting several retrojet liveries in their fleets. Starting in Canada, the country’s national airline Air Canada has both an Airbus A320 and a more modern Airbus A220-300 painted in the 1950s-era color scheme of Trans Canada Air Lines, a predecessor to the modern-day Air Canada.

Featuring a largely solid grey fuselage to represent the bare metal fuselage of the day. The livery also features a red and white window cheatline along with the airline’s ubiquitous maple leaf logo on the tail.

Alaska Airlines operates three retrojet aircraft featuring liveries from its history. First is an Embraer ERJ-175 in the 1990s-era livery of Horizon Air. The regional airline remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alaska Airlines, with its aircraft now painted in full Alaska Airlines colors. However, the Embraer jet wears the orange, red, and blue ‘meatball’ livery used by Horizon Air when it flew as an independent carrier.

Alaska Airlines’ other retrojet is a Boeing 737-800 that features the 1990s livery worn by the carrier’s early Boeing 737s. The livery consists of narrow blue and green cheatlines with the airline’s ‘Smiling Inuk Man’ image on the tail with large Alaska billboard titles. Additionally, another 737-800 features a 1960s-era livery which is largely grey in overall color with subtle navy blue cheatlines and vintage titles.

Coming further south, several US airlines have adopted the retrojet trend. In 2022, Southwest Airlines painted one of its 737-800s in the company’s original ‘Desert Gold’ scheme dating back to the 1970s. Designed to honor the airline’s founder, Herb Kelleher, the aircraft features the ochre, orange, and red livery that the first Southwest Airlines 737-200s wore when the airline began flying in 1971.

Delta Air Lines, celebrating its centenary year in 2025, has a good deal of history to draw upon for its retrojet offering. In 2004, the airline repainted its first Boeing 767-200 in a special scheme to mark the airline’s 75^th anniversary (somewhat late). The aircraft carried the livery but was eventually painted back into the airline’s 1980s-era white, black, and red ‘Widget’ scheme for display at the Delta Air Lines Museum.

The fleet of United Airlines has featured several retro airline liveries over the years. One A320 is operating in a vintage ‘Friend Ship’ livery dating back to the 1960s and early 1970s, while another A320 wears a Continental Airline scheme of the 1960s (Continental merged into United Airlines in 2010).

By far the most active US airline in the retrojet arena has to be American Airlines. In 2023, the airline revealed a series of its aircraft featuring the color schemes of airlines that have merged into the carrier over the years, with some iconic names being given a new lease of life through the process.

Carriers such as Allegheny Airlines, AirCal, TWA, Piedmont Airlines, US Airways, America West, and Reno Air have all reappeared in livery form, with their colors being displayed on Airbus A319s and Boeing 737s. American Airlines also has two of its own retrojets, too – one 737-800 carrying the carrier’s ‘Astrojet’ silver livery from the 1950s, while another wears the three-color cheatline livery from the 1980s and 1990s.

South America

With a rich heritage of airlines over the decades, carriers across the continent of South America have also embraced the retrojet trend.

Aerolineas Argentinas painted one of its Boeing 737-700s into the company’s 1980s-era color scheme, while Avianca has followed the lead set by American Airlines by painting a series of aircraft in the colors of airlines that have merged into the Colombian carrier (TACA, Aviateca, LACSA) as well as operating one of its A320s in an Avianca retro scheme.

Lastly, COPA of Panama revealed a 737-800 retrojet wearing the carrier’s former white, red, and yellow scheme to commemorate the airline’s 75th anniversary in 2022.   

Europe

It would be fair to say that Europe’s airlines have been the most prolific in embracing the whole retrojet phenomenon. One does not need to travel far across the continent to come across an airline that has its retrojet, painted in a historic scheme. Indeed, the list of airlines that operate an aircraft in a vintage livery is too extensive for this article, save that some airlines even have more than one, given the age of the airline and its rich and lengthy history.

European airlines that have a retrojet flying in a vintage scheme include –

• Austrian Airlines – Airbus A320
• KLM – Boeing 737-800
• Iberia – Airbus A319
• Finnair – Airbus A319
• SAS – Airbus A319
• Condor  – Boeing 767-300
• TAP – Airbus A321
• LOT – Embraer ERJ-170
• Aer Lingus – Airbus A320
• TAROM – Boeing 737-700

Among the other European airlines using retrojet liveries, Lufthansa has two Airbus A321s wearing a 1960s-era scheme, while a Boeing 747-8 wears the classic but simple ‘Flying Crane’ livery from the 1980s.

Staying in Germany, leisure airline TUI operates one Boeing 737-800 in a 1980s Hapag Lloyd Flug orange and blue livery while another of the airline’s aircraft features a unique three-in-one livery featuring the liveries of the airlines that eventfully became part of TUI – Hapag Lloyd Flug and Hapag Lloyd Express, with the current TUI scheme at the front end – a good example of an airline truly embracing its history uniquely and imaginatively.

Like Lufthansa, British Airways has embraced different eras in its history by using several liveries to depict the airline’s evolution. In 2019, the British flag carrier unveiled four aircraft painted in different retrojet schemes at its London-Heathrow base. Three were Boeing 747-400s (all since scrapped, sadly) which wore the 1970s BOAC scheme, the 1980s ‘Negus’ scheme, and the 1990s ‘Landor’ scheme.

The final aircraft to be included in the retrospective quartet was an Airbus A319 that was rolled out in a 1960s British European Airways livery. This last aircraft is the only one of the four still serving with British Airways and continues to fly revenue passenger flights for the airline today.

While Air France previously had an Airbus A320 featuring a retro scheme for a few years post-2010, the aircraft was eventually repainted into the conventional Air France scheme and was not replaced, ending the French carrier’s association with the retrojet.

However, worth mentioning at this point is that Dutch-based airline Transavia (part of the Air France-KLM Group) is poised to launch Europe’s latest retrojet in the summer of 205 as the carrier begins flying a new Airbus A321neo painted in a special retro scheme to mark the carrier’s 60th anniversary.

Africa, the Middle East and beyond

The retrojet fad has not just been limited to the Americas and Europe. Numerous airlines elsewhere in the world have also jumped on the vintage bandwagon, with each selecting one aircraft to proudly wear a special commemorative retro scheme.

While African airlines have been slower to adopt retrojet liveries, examples do still exist on the continent. In the north of the continent, Tunisair has previously operated a retrojet in the past. The carrier had a Boeing 737-600 painted in the company’s old livery for its 70^th anniversary, although this aircraft was retired in 2021.

Moving away from Africa to the Levant and the Middle East, Turkish Airlines has two aircraft painted in the carrier’s colors of the 1970s and 1980s, an Airbus A330-200 plus an A320. Lebanon-based Middle East Airlines (MEA) had an Airbus A320 painted in a special vintage scheme for a time although, according to photographic evidence online, this airframe has since been painted back into the carrier’s predominantly white livery.

Royal Jordanian Airlines has one of its A321s finished in a retro livery from 1980. Known as the ‘Alia’ livery, the color scheme was unveiled as part of the airline’s centenary celebrations. Israel’s El Al is also no stranger to the retrojet trend, with one of its Boeing 787s painted in the airline’s 1960s livery to mark the airline’s 70th anniversary.

Moving further beyond Africa, even airlines in the Middle East have adopted retro liveries for some of their aircraft. Gulf Air and Qatar Airways both operate retrojets, with the former flying a Boeing 787-9 in colors worn by the airline’s fleet of Vickers VC10s and Lockheed Tristars in the 1970s and 1980s, while Qatar Airways has one of its Boeing 777-300ERs that wears the carrier’s deep burgundy livery which first appeared in the late 1980s.

Interestingly, Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) introduced a retrojet in the early 2020s which featured the airline’s livery from the 1980s. However, the airline’s board must have liked it so much, that it has since been adopted as the carrier’s ‘new’ color scheme for its fleet, in a classic case of “what goes around, comes around”.

Lastly in the region, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) painted three of its aircraft (two A320s and a single Boeing 777-300ER into the same vintage design to mark that carrier’s 60^th anniversary.

Asia and Australasia

As our global tour of retro airline liveries nears its conclusion, there are still a handful of carriers in Asia and Australia that have presented fleet members in a vintage livery design.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) in Japan operated a Boeing 767-300 in the company’s blue and white design of the 1970s and 1980s between 2009 and 2014. The aircraft was retired in 2016. In Indonesia, the state airline Garuda has several aircraft which feature retro liveries, including two Boeing 737-800s in different retro schemes, plus an Airbus A330-300 and a Boeing 777-300 that both wear the airline’s color scheme from 1969 to 1985, both featuring red and orange fuselage colors.  

Malaysia Airlines had a single Boeing 737-800 that has been adorned with the carrier’s livery from the 1970s and 1980s, which features red fuselage cheatlines plus a red tail. Unfortunately, the aircraft concerned, (registered 9M-MXA) has recently been repainted and now wears the latest incarnation of the airline’s livery featuring a largely white fuselage with the colors of a stylized Malaysian flag across the rear fuselage in navy and red.

Our tour of retrojet liveries ends in Australia, with the national carrier Qantas falling under our focus. While one of the carrier’s Boeing 737-800s wears a scheme from the airline’s early days of operating jet aircraft (and is named ‘Retro Roo II’), another features the classic 1980s Qantas livery which features the ‘Flying Kangaroo’ tail log and a bright orange cheatline running down the windows.

On the subject of Qantas, it is worth giving an honorable mention to one other aircraft that wore a Qantas retrojet livery, albeit this one was in every sense a real retrojet. In July 2024, the actor John Travolta (Saturday Night Fever, Pulp Fiction) donated his Boeing 707-138 to the Historic Aircraft Restoration Society (HARS) in Australia.

With the airplane having originally served with Qantas in the 1960s, Travolta continued to fly the aircraft throughout the 2000s and 2010s effectively as his private jet, although the aircraft wore its original iconic Qantas ‘V-Jet’ retro livery throughout this time, with Travolta himself being appointed as a Qantas ambassador.

Sadly, the aircraft has been sitting in the US for several years awaiting the maintenance it requires to ferry it across the Pacific Ocean to HARS in Shellharbour, New South Wales. However, in early 2025, it was announced that the aircraft, known as the ‘Last of the Hot Rods’, cannot be returned to airworthy condition and may have to be shipped to HARS in parts. A sad end to what must be the best example of a retrojet still in existence.

Conclusion

With scores of retrojets still flying around the world today, there are still many opportunities to gain a glimpse into the world of airline travel of yesteryear. But as we have seen, retro airline liveries do not last forever, and aircraft eventually require repainting once again. If the phenomenon of the retro airline livery eventually runs its course, then it will have no doubt brought a smile to and turned some heads of the many who saw the retrojets on their travels.

However, should the trend continue, then many of the airline liveries we see at airports worldwide today may reappear at some point in the future, as the old becomes the new once more.

What are your thoughts on airline retro liveries? What have been your favorite and least favorite retrojet color schemes over the years? Perhaps there are others you are aware of that this article has not covered. Do let us have your views in the comments.         

Founded in 1920, Qantas is the third oldest airline in the world in continuous existence (only KLM and Avianca are slightly older) and one of the few to have reached its centenary. 

Its first international flight, which took place on April 17, 1935, was no small feat. A DH86 aircraft took three and a half days to cover the approximately 3,300 nm (6,100 km) between Brisbane and Singapore. The journey involved 16 intermediate stops along the way. 

Given the geographical location of Australia and the distances that separate it from other continental landmasses, Qantas is no stranger to setting records in its international operations. 

Its Double Sunrise service, which linked Western Australia to Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) and India during World War Two in 27 to 33 hours, still holds the record for the longest nonstop commercial flight in history (a topic covered in the latest AeroTime Insights newsletter). 

Likewise, Qantas’ planned Project Sunrise service, directly linking Sydney (SYD) to London-Heathrow (LHR), with specially configured A350-1000 aircraft is set to become the world’s longest commercial flight when it launches in 2027. The 10,573 miles (16,916 km) will be covered in around 20 hours. 

Qantas’ international operations have come a long way since that its flight. In the nine decades since then, more than 273 million passengers have flown on Qantas international services. As of April 2025, the Australian carrier’s international network spans 34 destinations in 25 countries and includes a total of 56 routes.  

The S-3B Viking, which formed part of the US Navy fleet, was originally designed by Lockheed Martin as an anti-submarine warfare aircraft and were operational during the Gulf War and in Afghanistan.  

According to the National Naval Aviation Museum, the S-3B Viking was nicknamed the ‘Hoover’ due to the sound of its engines. 

Over the years, NASA adopted four S-3Bs to support research, which included environmental monitoring and satellite communications testing. 

On April 16, 2025, NASA announced that an S-3B Viking, which supported a sister aircraft by donating parts would retire to a new home and be placed on display to honor all Prisoners of War (POW) and those Missing in Action (MIA). 

The museum is located at the former Naval Air Station Cecil Field where S-3B Vikings once flew and in recognition of the 54 service members who perished during S-3 flight missions a plaque will be displayed next to the aircraft.  

“We are honored to be part of it,” said JD Demers, Chief of Aircraft Operations at NASA Glenn. “Moving the S-3 is a win-win for everybody. The museum gets an aircraft in beautiful shape, and our S-3 gets to continue living a meaningful life.” 

Through the donation of its parts to its sister aircraft, registered N601NA, the S-3 contributed to communications research in advanced air mobility and monitoring of algal bloom growth in Lake Erie. 

“Having this aircraft added an extra 10 years of life to its sister plane,” Demers said. “Those 10 years were vital for research. This plane allowed us to keep flying that aircraft after the Navy retired the S-3B Vikings in 2009. We wouldn’t have been able to find parts.” 

NASA highlighted the importance of the museum for giving visitors a “place of solace to reflect, learn, and hear stories about America’s POW and MIA service members through exhibits and events”. 

“It’s really fortunate for us that this S-3 has such a well-kept, beautiful airframe that we can use as part of this plaza,” said Ed Turner, Executive Director of the National POW/MIA Memorial and Museum. “Cecil Field was the East Coast home for the S-3B Vikings, so we are proud to have it for display here as one of Cecil’s legacy aircraft.” 

The US Navy flew S-3 Vikings primarily out of three locations: North Island Naval Air Station, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, and Naval Air Station Jacksonville. There were S-3B Vikings in all locations except Jacksonville, until now. 

“There are three bases in three locations that used to fly S-3s, and now each area has an S-3 as part of its display,” Demers said. “It belongs there. It’s going back to its original home.” 

N601NA retired in 2021 after flying for 16 years on a variety of NASA research missions. 

The often highly dramatic events seem to strike a chord with the public perhaps because they highlight the fragility of life when travelling on exciting adventures or a feeling that the victims could have been anyone of us. 

But where there is extreme pain and suffering there are often stories of miracles and the human instinct to survive against the odds 

For those that survive plane crashes when everyone around them, including loved ones, perish, the psychological turmoil that follows can be an incredible weight to bear. 

‘Survivors guilt’ can lead to feelings of distress in which they may feel responsible and that they are someway to blame for the deaths of others. 

A 2016 study by Free University Amsterdam found that following a plane crash a significant proportion of survivors suffer posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. 

After working with 82 survivors of a 2009 plane crash near Amsterdam the study found that two months after the event 46% were at risk of PTSD and 32% of depression. 

A further 76 survivors from the same crash were questioned nine months after the event and found that 47% were at risk of PTSD and 35% of depression. 

In the last 50 years, it is thought that there have been fewer than 30 sole survivors from commercial flights that crashed killing everybody onboard with the exception of them. 

While their survival is astonishing, their testimony of what happened and how they now view life through a different lens is equally captivating and inspiring. 

Cecelia Cichan 

Four-year-old Cecelia Cichan from Tempe, Arizona, was travelling with her mother, father and six-year-old brother on Northwest Airlines Flight 255 on August 16, 1987, when the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff. 

The MD-80, registered N312RC, was scheduled to land at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) but ran into difficulties after takeoff, colliding with obstacles northeast of the runway. 

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the MD-80 “broke up as it slid across the ground, and post-impact fires erupted along the wreckage path”.   

Sole Survivors: Cecelia Cichan, Age 4. Northwest Airlines Flight 255 (1987). Deaths 156. pic.twitter.com/3os8NCeqjw

— Luke (past aviation account ) (@Drawingyterss) November 6, 2015

In the ensuing mayhem, all six crewmembers, 148 passengers and two people on a road adjacent to the airport died but against the odds young Cecelia Cichan survived despite being seriously injured. 

Deputy James Arnold of the Wayne County Sheriff’s office found the four-year-old after, assisted by John Thiede from the Romulus Fire Department 

“There was a seat upside down, and we moved the chair and checked underneath the chair. When we looked, a hand was coming out from the chair that she was in,” Thiede told CBS. 

In hospital Cecelia Cichan underwent four skin grafts for severe burns and received treatment after suffering a fracture to her skull and collarbone and a broken left leg. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the probable cause of the accident was the flight crew’s failure to use the taxi checklist to ensure that the flaps and slats were extended for takeoff. 

Additionally, an absence of electrical power to the aircraft’s takeoff warning system meant the flight crew were not advised that the plane was configured properly. 

Cecelia Cichan was looked after by her aunt and uncle in Birmingham, Alabama, where she was mainly protected from the media spotlight.  

On this day in 1987:
More than 150 people are killed when Northwest Airlines Flight 255 crashes while trying to take off from @DTWeetin. Lone survivor is 4-year-old Cecelia Cichan who sustains serious injuries. It is the second-deadliest aviation accident in the United States. pic.twitter.com/X4aUEcrRTY

— Ken Coleman (@HistoryLivesDet) August 16, 2020

In 2013, Cecelia, now Cecelia Crocker following a marriage, spoke about the crash for a documentary called ‘Sole Survivor’ after remaining silent for years.   

“I think about the accident every day. It’s kind of hard not to think about it when I look in the mirror. I have visual scars. My arms and my legs. And I have a scar on my forehead. I got this tattoo (of a plane) as a reminder of where I’ve come from. So many scars were put on my body against my will, and I decided to put this on my body for myself,” said Cecilia Crocker in the documentary. 

During the interview Cecelia expressed how feelings of guilt for surviving the crash have developed over the years. 

“When I realized I was the only person to survive that plane crash, I was maybe in middle school, high school, maybe, being an adolescent and confused. So, it was just extra stress for me. I remember feeling angry and survivor’s guilt. ‘Why didn’t my brother survive? Why didn’t anybody? Why me?’” she said.  

The incredible survivor also revealed that flying doesn’t scare her despite the tragedy having such a huge impact on her life. 

“I have this mentality where if something bad happened to me once on a plane, it’s not going to happen again. The odds are just astronomical,” she said. 

Bahia Bakari 

On June 30, 2009, 12-year-old Bahia Bakari was flying from France with her mother to Comoros, an archipelagic country off the east coast of Mozambique, to visit relatives.  

The Yemenia Airways Airbus A310-300, registered 7O-ADJ, flew from Sanaa in Yemen and was approaching Prince Said Ibrahim International Airport (HAH), when it crashed at full throttle into the Indian Ocean at 01:50, local time. 

When the aircraft went down there were 142 passengers and 11 crewmembers onboard, many who had boarded in Paris and Marseille on a connecting flight into Yemen. 

As Bahia Bakari fought for her survival in the dark, choppy waters she had no idea that she was the sole survivor and her mother along with 151 people had perished. 

For 10 hours the 12-year-old clung to aircraft wreckage before she was plucked from the ocean by a rescue team. 

The day after the tragedy, Bahia Bakari’s father, Kassim, told the French media that his daughter had suffered a fractured collarbone and cuts and bruises to her face. 

“I asked her what happened, and she said: ‘We saw the plane fall in the water. I found myself in the water. I was hearing people speak but I couldn’t see anyone. I was in the dark. I couldn’t see anything. Daddy, I couldn’t swim very well. I grabbed on to something, but I don’t know what’,” Kassim Bakari said after speaking to his daughter on the telephone.  

The Guardian reported that after visiting the survivor Alain Joyandet, the French co-operation secretary, said that Bahia Bakari had shown “incredible physical and moral strength”. 

 “She is physically out of danger, she is evidently very traumatized,” Joyandet added. 

In April 2012, Bahia Bakari spoke out for the first time and described how the Airbus A310 was “shaking” before the aircraft crashed.  

“I remember that I was sat next to my mother, who was tired, and so was I. There were lots of people sleeping in the plane […] I saw by the porthole the plane was shaking. We were asked to fasten our seat belts, not because of turbulence, but because we were about to land,” Bahia Bakari told a French radio station.  

She explained that she had the feeling something was wrong as she had never experienced an aircraft vibrate so much.  

In the water she described there being choppy waves and for a while she could hear other people still alive nearby, but she could not see them. 

“When I found myself back in the water, I said to myself that it was necessary to stay awake and that rescuers would not be late arriving. But I stayed awake, and I saw nothing. Then I fell asleep. In the morning, I again remained hopeful. But then I said to myself, that’s that, they’re not going to find me,” said Bahia Bakar. 

Bahia Bakari,yon jèn rescape fransèz kitap vrayaje ak manmanl Abò vòl Yemenia 626, yon Airbus A310,kite esploze 153, pasajè nan nuit ki te 30 jen 2009, nan okseyan endyen nan rejyon nò peyi comorean afrik, Bahia Bakari ta pral sove par yon pechè Comorienaprè 9èd tan. pic.twitter.com/2CeDjsUd00

— PLAToA (@PlatoA_) October 26, 2023

In 2022, Bahia Bakar gave evidence as part of a French trial against Yemenia where she told the court more about the lead up to the crash.  

According to Agence France-Presse, she said that while she was in the water she had “the taste of jet fuel” in her mouth and that she was unsure how she “was going to get through this”. 

In front of more than 100 relatives of the crash victims, Bahia Bakar described how the flight “went normally” until the decent into Comoros began.  

“I started to feel the turbulence, but nobody was reacting much, so I told myself it must be normal […] I felt something like an electric shock go through my body. There’s a black hole between the moment when I was seated in the plane and the moment I found myself in the water,” she told the court. 

She later added: “I realized that voices were calling for help in Comorian, and I cried out a bit but without much hope, because there was nothing but water around me and I couldn’t see anyone.” 

When explaining how she got through the ordeal Bahia Bakar told the court she was thinking of her “incredibly protective” mother and that gave her the strength to hold on.  

Juliane Koepcke 

Juliane Koepcke was 17 years old when she boarded Lineas Aéreas Nacionales SA (commonly known as LANSA) Flight 508 on December 24, 1971, in Lima, Peru, with her mother. 

Including Juliane Koepcke there were 86 passengers and six crewmembers on board the Lockheed L-188 Electra turboprop that was scheduled to fly to Pucallpa and then on to Iquitos, both in Peru. 

In an interview with CNN in 2009, the dual German Peruvian national said she and her mother had reservations about LANSA’s safety record but they wanted to be with her father, who ran a research station in the Amazon Rainforest, for Christmas.  

During the flight, the aircraft encountered thunderstorms and heavy turbulence resulting in the engine being struck by lightning and right wing tearing off the plane.  

“Then we flew into heavy clouds and the plane started shaking. My mother was very nervous. Then to the right we saw a bright flash and the plane went into a nose dive. My mother said, ‘This is it!’,” Juliane Koepcke told CNN.  

#OTD in 1971: LANSA Flight 508, an L-188 Electra, crashes in Puerto Inca (Peru), 91 die. Plane was hit by lightning and fell in the jungle. Lone survivor, 17 yo Juliane Koepcke, used survival skills to make her way out of the location until she was found by locals, 11 days later. pic.twitter.com/qvlskz8oVK

— Air Safety #OTD by Francisco Cunha (@OnDisasters) December 24, 2021

According to Juliane Koepcke as the aircraft broke into pieces mid-flight she was thrown out of the plane and remembers falling through the sky. 

“Suddenly there was this amazing silence. The plane was gone. I must have been unconscious and then came to in midair. I was flying, spinning through the air and I could see the forest spinning beneath me,” she said.  

It is thought that Juliane Koepcke fell three kilometers (two miles) and by some miracle survived.  

It is believed that the seat she was strapped to acted as a makeshift parachute slowing her fall and that the dense forest cushioned her landing.  

In many ways, though her battle for survival was only just beginning when she awoke on the ground. 

Having learnt survival skills from her parents who both worked as zoologists in the Amazon Rainforest, Juliane Koepcke decided to follow a creek which she knew would lead to a river and help.  

For 11 days she trekked through the jungle suffering from concussion, a broken collarbone, and a large cut on her right arm. An insect even laid eggs in her cut, and around 50 maggots were later found when she found help.  

After 11 days she came across a small boat by a river and decided to wait to see if anyone returned for it.  

Thankfully, some Peruvian lumberjacks working in the forest found her and took her to the nearest town where she was given treatment.  

In her memoir, ‘When I fell from the sky’, Juliane Koepcke, wrote: “I’m aware that it’s a miracle that I’m still alive, and I wonder why me of all people. I have survived the crash and believe that I now have to get through this too. I pray that I will find people. I pray for my rescue. I want to live. With every fiber of my gradually weakening body, I want to live. And then I wonder what I will do with that life when this is finally over.” 

In a 2010 interview the profound effect of her survival was clear to see, when she said: “I had nightmares for a long time, for years, and of course the grief about my mother’s death and that of the other people came back again and again. The thought, ‘Why was I the only survivor?’ haunts me. It always will.” 

World War Two Army veteran John Hodges, aged 101, and Navy veteran Arthur Grabiner, aged 99, were flown by the airline under Operation Pacific Tribute, spearheaded by two United Airlines pilots, who raised funds to bring the two veterans back to the Philippines, where they fought alongside Filipino soldiers to liberate the country from Japan.

On April 9, 1945, the Battle of Manila was nearing its end after two months of destructive urban warfare where troops from the United States and the Philippines fought against the Imperial Japanese Army to reclaim the capital of the Philippines from Japan.

Approximately 35,000 US troops, including 12,500 sailors and marines and 4,500 soldiers, fought in the Battle of Manila, alongside 3,000 Filipino guerrillas.  

Though the Allied forces were successful in liberating the Philippines from Japan, the battle ended up with 100,000 civilian deaths, the complete destruction of Manila, then known as the “Stalingrad of Asia” due to it being one of the most devastated capital cities of World War Two, alongside Berlin and Warsaw. 

Hodges and Grabiner received a warm welcome in Manila, where they attended a memorial ceremony at the Manila American Cemetery.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ABMC (@usabmc)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ABMC (@usabmc)

Renato spent 15 years as Senior Cabin Crew in the Middle East and has a lifelong passion for aviation history. He has also led the largest research project on Alberto Santos-Dumont and was condecorated by the Brazilian Air Force for efforts in aviation preservation.  

Renato is now working to shape the future of private aviation, connecting today’s innovators with tomorrow’s history. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

A Gulfstream G700 glides smoothly onto the runway at Dubai World Central, Al Maktoum International Airport (DWC). Moments later, the passengers are met with the epitome of modern private aviation, an ultra-exclusive Fixed-Base Operator (FBO), complete with avant-garde architecture, electric neo-punk luxury cars, and a dedicated concierge team.  

Inside, the hum of efficiency is underscored by the gentle notes of a grand piano. This is private aviation today, an ecosystem of precision, luxury, and seamless logistics.  

But how did we get here?  

Paris, 1901: The birth of the private aviation hub  

The story begins over a century ago when a young Brazilian pioneer, Alberto Santos-Dumont, piloted his dirigible above Paris, his unmistakable silhouette floating past the Eiffel Tower.  

But while the world watched in awe, Santos-Dumont knew that flight alone was not enough, his airships needed a home. Thus, in the lush greenery of Saint-Cloud, he built the world’s first aircraft hangar, a towering 30-meter-high structure designed not just as a shelter, but as a nerve center for innovation.  

On the gigantic white wooden structure, his dirigibles were maintained, refined, and prepared for their next feats. And it wasn’t just Santos-Dumont who recognized the importance of this space, his hangar became a gathering point for royals, scientists, and industrialists, including Samuel Langley, the American aviation pioneer. 

The hangar goes global: Monaco, London, and New York  

Fresh from his historic Eiffel Tower flight in 1901, Santos-Dumont’s next invitation came from the Prince of Monaco, eager to bring aviation to his principality.  

Soon after, an even grander hangar was erected on the most valuable land in the principality, where today, F1 cars race through the streets. His dirigible flights over the Mediterranean marked the birth of the aviation destiny of Monaco, a tradition that continues today with one of the world’s busiest heliports and private aviation markets. 

Santos-Dumont’s reputation soared beyond the Francophone world. He became the founding member of the Royal Aeroclub of England, and a gigantic ‘shed’ was commissioned at the Crystal Palace, a huge glasshouse structure in London’s Hyde Park, to house his airship.  

In time, this structure would give way to Britain’s first-ever dirigible, “Spencer’s N1”, a direct copy of Santos-Dumont’s designs.  

Across the Atlantic, another chapter was written. A group of investors, backed by Thomas Edison, brought Santos-Dumont to Long Island, where they funded a state-of-the-art hangar to house his N8 airship.  

On October 1, 1902, the first known airship race in history took place there.  

In less than two years, one man had built four hangars in four different countries. It was no longer just about flying, it was about establishing the infrastructure that would define private aviation for the next century.  

From wooden sheds to boutique aviation hubs  

Fast forward to today and the principles of the Santos-Dumont hangar remain at the heart of modern FBOs in Geneva, London, Miami, and beyond.  

During the post-World War Two boom, military airfields transitioned to civilian use, creating the demand for dedicated aviation service providers.  

The United States Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 introduced a new term, Fixed-Base Operators (FBOs), to formalize aviation infrastructure. By the Jet Age of the 1950s, private aviation was no longer a dream, it was a necessity.  

Today’s private terminals blend high technology with extreme discretion, catering to executives, celebrities, and high-net-worth individuals who move at the speed of business.  

Miami-Opa Locka, Teterboro, London-Biggin Hill, Paris-Le Bourget, and Geneva-Cointrin, all, at their core, operate with the same vision Santos-Dumont had in 1901: aircraft should always be mission-ready, passengers should experience seamless entry, and exit maintenance should be efficient and discreet. 

Dumont’s close friends, Louis Cartier, Coco Chanel, Alice Roosevelt, Ricardo Soriano, and Prince Roland Bonaparte, would later become inspiration for today’s elite travelers.  

Their world was built around horse racetracks, casinos, and automotive circuits, the very same locations where private aviation thrives today.  

No matter how advanced our aircraft, technology, or digital booking systems become, the foundation remains the same.  

It all started with Santos-Dumont’s vision – gigantic rolling doors in Paris Saint Cloud. 

Saigon (now known as Ho Chi Minh City) was captured by North Vietnamese Army (NVA) forces on April 30, 1975. Historically referred to as the “Fall of Saigon,” Vietnam also commemorates that day as Victory Day, or the day that Vietnam had its reunification as one country under communist rule.

The day before the Fall of Saigon, as the NVA forces closed in on the South Vietnamese capital, the US military launched Operation Frequent Wind. It was the first major operation involving the use of US Air Force (USAF) helicopters from an aircraft carrier. Lasting two days, Operation Frequent Wind evacuated more than 7,000 remaining American nationals and at-risk Vietnamese out of Saigon. 

Operation Frequent Wind is considered a success. However, much earlier, before the operation was executed, in the early days of April 1975, the US, Australia, and other Western countries, including France, West Germany, and Canada, began planning for an airlift evacuation that required special handling: Operation Babylift.

Operation Babylift

The US became involved in the Vietnam War in 1965. From then until the war ended in 1975, approximately 2.7 million US soldiers served in Vietnam on a rotational basis, with the peak numbers reaching 543,482 deployed simultaneously in April 1969. 

An estimated 100,000 children were born to foreign (mostly US) military servicemen and Vietnamese women during the Vietnam War. Referred to colloquially as “Bui Doi”, meaning “dust of life”, these children were often neglected and left behind in Vietnam as orphans.

On April 3, 1975, US President Gerald Ford announced that the US government had planned to airlift orphans out of Saigon via a series of 30 flights aboard Military Airlift Command (MAC) C-5A Galaxy and C-141 Starlifter cargo aircraft operated by the 62nd Airlift Wing of the USAF.

Later that same day, Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam announced that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) would also evacuate around 200 children from Saigon to Bangkok in Thailand, where they would be met by a Qantas plane to bring them to Australia.

These missions would become known as Operation Babylift.

First mission: 155 killed

The first official babylift ended in tragedy. On April 4, 1975, a USAF Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, with registration 68-0218, departed Saigon’s Tan Son Nhat Airport (SGN). 

It was the first flight from Operation Babylift, and it was scheduled to fly from Saigon to Clark, in the Philippines, where it was then to fly onwards to Los Angeles. The flight was carrying 149 orphans, 10 members of a medical team, 155 military personnel, and 16 crew members.

12 minutes into the flight, while cruising at an altitude of 23,000 feet over the South China Sea, the aircraft experienced a technical issue with the rear access ramp doors, followed by a rapid decompression of the cabin. The Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (BAAA) recorded that during this time, a crew member fell out of the aircraft. Later on, the aircraft’s rear access door detached and also fell into the sea. 

The flight’s captain then declared an emergency and contacted Saigon Airport’s ATC, where he was given clearance to perform an emergency landing.

| 𝗔𝗶𝗿 𝗖𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Season 7, Episode 5: 'Operation Babylift'
| 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱: 2 December 2009 pic.twitter.com/W9hcTj7kSK

— Air Crash Investigation (@AirCrash_) April 4, 2022

According to the BAAA, two of the aircraft’s four hydraulic systems were out of order and control, and trim cables to the rudder and elevators were severed. Only one aileron and one wing spoiler were operating. The crew was able to descend to runway 25L when the rate of descent increased to 4,000 feet per minute. 

The airplane first struck the ground at a speed of 250 knots about four kilometers short of runway 25L, before bouncing for three seconds and then crashing 500 meters further in a rice paddy field. The aircraft disintegrated on impact and debris scattered over a wide area, the BAAA said. 

141 orphans were killed as well as six soldiers, five crew members, and three of the medical team.

After the crash, Major General Maurice F. Casey, the Deputy Director for Logistics in the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that the US government still planned to continue Operation Babylift. It was agreed then that Lockheed C-141 Starlifter planes would be used for the operations and, as an extra safety precaution, these evacuation flights would only land and take off during the day.

RAAF: Improvised cots

50 years on, the RAAF has published a media release recalling the events of Operation Babylift and how it hurriedly made preparations right after Prime Minister Whitlam announced that Australia would also evacuate around 200 children out of Saigon.

Staff from the RAAF Base Butterworth in Malaysia, along with four aeromedical teams from 4 RAAF Hospital were placed on alert to deploy to Saigon for Operation Babylift.

The RAAF said that hospital staff busily cut down packing cases with foam rubber bases to create make-shift cots to carry babies on board the aircraft.

“The babies were simply laid side by side, five to a medevac litter, with a bottle of boiled water put in their mouths. This was to keep them sucking and adjust their ears to changing air pressure,” an RAAF nursing sister was reported to have said, according to the RAAF media release. 

“A tie-down strap was used to secure them for take-off. It seems pretty rudimentary in retrospect, but at the time this was the simplest way of coping with such large numbers,” the nursing sister said.

The RAAF used two C-130 Hercules aircraft for the operation. The first one departed shortly after the doomed Lockheed Galaxy of the USAF. The two RAAF C-130s eventually landed in Bangkok, where they were welcomed by wives of Australian diplomats and Thai flight attendants, who assisted the RAAF nurses to care for the orphans. 

The children were then transferred to a Qantas Boeing 747 aircraft that had been chartered by the Australian government to bring the orphans to Australia. According to the RAAF, the staff had to improvise and use cardboard cartons as cots for the babies during this flight to Australia.

“Every available space in the aircraft was soon filled to capacity, with the very sick orphans placed to the rear of the aircraft to receive intensive nursing,” said an RAAF nursing staff member who was on the flight.

The Qantas B747 arrived at Tullamarine Airport in Melbourne the following morning, and children who were very unwell were transferred to waiting ambulances. 

On April 17, 1975, another two RAAF aircraft evacuated a further 77 orphans during a second airlift. 

Continuous reunion

Operation Babylift ran between April 3 and 26, 1975. In total, approximately 3,000 children were evacuated from Saigon.

Out of those, more than 2,500 were relocated to the United States, where they were adopted out to families. Australian families adopted more than  250 children and became members of the Australian community. 

Operation Babylift may have concluded 50 years ago, but the journey of these Bui Doi continues. 

Now middle-aged and living either in the US, Australia, or Vietnam, as well as other parts of Asia, many of these children have embarked on a quest to find their biological parents. With the advantage and ease of DNA technology and social media, these reunions continue to take place, long after they were airlifted as babies. 

Since those early days, the autopilot has developed enormously, both in terms of capabilities and functionality. Nowadays, modern aircraft are equipped with systems that can not only fly the aircraft but can also perform fully automated take-offs and landings and can even provide protection systems in the event of unusual flight situations that threaten the safety of the airplane and its occupants.

Largely gone are the days when pilots had to manually control their aircraft from engine start-up to shut down by keeping their hands rigidly fixed on the controls at all times. However, the development of the autopilot has not come without its drawbacks, either. Some high-profile accidents have been caused either by autopilot errors or by pilots misinterpreting what the autopilot was doing, with catastrophic effects.

Yet despite this, the advancement of autopilot has made flying, whether that be in a small light aircraft or an Airbus A380, the experience it is today. AeroTime takes a look back at the development of automatic pilot systems, from its early days before the First World War, all the way to its modern-day equivalent, and how a flight of 18 hours or more can be conducted safely with the pilots barely having to manually manipulate the flight controls at any stage of that process. 

What is an autopilot?            

In the years following the Wright Brothers’ pioneering work of establishing the principles of powered flight, aeronautical engineers were keen to exploit the new technology and develop expertise to broaden the possibilities of what could be achieved by flying. With the demand for longer flights rising, and the desire to send mail at first, and later passengers by air over greater distances, there was a need to reduce the pilot workload over such journeys. The limits of human manual dexterity and pilot fatigue were the two early prohibiting factors from air carriers conducting longer flights.

Relentless concentration was required by the pilots flying the early aircraft, and any lapse could have fatal results. The requirement for technology that could relieve the pressure from piloting on longer flights was therefore crucial. As a result, the first autopilot was developed to introduce an element of control on the trajectory of airplanes.

In simple terms, an autopilot assists in the control of the aircraft while the pilot takes care of aspects requiring judgment. Allowing the pilot to concentrate on broader aspects of flight, the autopilot takes control of the flight trajectory of the aircraft, normally managing the three basic dimensions of flight – pitch, roll, and yaw.

An autopilot allows the aircraft’s progress to be controlled autonomously, without the manual input of the controls by a human being. However, it is important to note that an autopilot normally must be engaged and disengaged with human input, and generally speaking, the autopilot is there to act as an aid to the pilot, rather than a replacement for them.

Early development of the autopilot

In 1912, an American inventor by the name of Elmer Ambrose Sperry, working in collaboration with a German physicist, Hermann Anschütz-Kaempfe, proposed a system that would allow a moving vehicle (of any type) to maintain a pre-set course. The operation of this new system would be based on connecting one or more gyroscopes and a compass to the control elements of the vehicle in question. With the theory having been successfully demonstrated by the two men, their new system was installed and used on several dozen US Navy vessels and won them immediate worldwide acclaim for its reliability and performance.

With the theory of the autopilot proven and established, it would be Elmer Ambrose Sperry’s son, Lawrence Sperry, who would take on the task of developing a light-weight version of his father’s invention that could be used to control aircraft. A keen aviation enthusiast himself, Lawrence Sperry could already see the advantages that perfecting an autopilot system for aircraft could have to expedite the development of aviation.   

Lawrence Sperry believed that the three flight axes of an aircraft (roll, pitch, and yaw) could be simultaneously controlled by an automatic system if it employed one or several gyroscopes as a reference, maintaining the aircraft’s orientation and state. Sperry had to devise a method by which the aircraft’s control surfaces could be physically linked to gyroscopes, which would allow automated corrections to be made to the flight profile based on the angle of deviation between the flight direction and the original gyroscopic configuration.

Sperry’s invention was known as a ‘gyroscopic automatic pilot’, later simply referred to as “George,” by many aviators. Its innovation was to automatically balance the airplane in flight, thus relieving the pilot from manually having to control the flight control surfaces freeing them up to monitor the engine instruments and carry out other tasks while flying.

Sperry’s first autopilot was born from the concept of assisting pilots during longer flights and reducing their workload, both physical and mental. Flying for extended periods of time at the controls of a basic aircraft was hard physical work, and poor weather or mechanical issues could also add to pilot fatigue on longer flights.

The gyroscopes to be used by Sperry in developing the aviation autopilot would require electrical power to maintain their rotational speed of around 7,000 rpm. However, Sperry solved this use through the use of a wind-driven generator situated on the aircraft’s wing to provide the necessary power. With aircraft performance still largely limited by engine capacity and weight, Sperry’s new autopilot system had to be compact and light. He managed to reduce the overall size of his first autopilot system to just 18 kilograms (39.6 lbs) in weight and the size of a small suitcase of approximately 45 x 45 x 30 centimeters.

Demonstrating Sperry’s new invention

With his new autopilot system developed, it needed to be demonstrated with its potential advantages being publicized to a wider audience. Sperry himself would take on this task, displaying the system’s operation at the Concours de la Securité en Aéroplane (Airplane Safety Competition), which was held in Paris in early 1914.

The 56 aircraft that participated in the 1914 competition presented a wide range of aviation innovations, ranging from assisted starting mechanisms, automatic carburetors, basic stabilization systems, and many other innovations that purported to benefit aviation safety. While the majority of exhibitors originated from France, others, including Sperry, also saw the competition as a perfect platform from which to launch their ideas.

Sperry’s innovation was presented at the competition installed in a Curtiss C-2 single-engine airplane with a hull-shaped lower fuselage. His system would provide an aircraft with automatic stability and control mechanism, through the control of the ailerons, stabilizer, and tail rudder through the use of a set of simple gyroscopes. Sperry demonstrated the system on the Curtiss C-2 accompanied by Emil Cachin, a French mechanic.

When Sperry’s demonstration slot began on June 18, 1914, the Curtiss C-2 took flight from the Buc airfield located near Paris and headed along a pre-designated route along the River Seine, where thousands of spectators and the judging panel had gathered along the riverbank. However, fully convinced of his invention’s capabilities, this was to be no ordinary display.   

Once lined up along the river and with the aircraft flying straight and level, both men onboard the aircraft raised their hands to demonstrate that the aircraft could maintain its flight without any manual input from them. In a second pass in front of the judging panel, and during a demonstration of unfathomable danger, Cachin climbed onto one of the aircraft’s wings, while Sperry placed his hands on his head. As the French mechanic slid himself along the wing of the aircraft, shifting its center of gravity, the aircraft became unbalanced. However, with the gyroscopes kicking in at this point, the aircraft corrected the weight shift by itself, without Sperry intervening.  

Still not satisfied that his system had been fully demonstrated, despite the wild excitement of the crowds on the banks below, in a final pass, both crew members climbed onto the wings to wave to the spectators, proving beyond any doubt just how reliable Sperry’s new autopilot system was. With the demonstration flying display complete, one of the judges boarded the aircraft to validate the system in the air. Sperry conducted one last short flight in which he demonstrated how his plane could take off and land being partially controlled by his new invention.

The subsequent announcement of the results of the competition saw Sperry take first prize, and walk away with the 50,000 francs prize money, along with international acclaim.

The Sperry Corporation went on to develop other gyroscopic instruments, including the artificial horizon and the heading indicator. These systems continue to be fitted in many current today. Even the most automated aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, and the F-35 military jet, come with such instruments fitted as standard should an electrical failure affect the more modern cockpit display screens.

Further advancements

As Sperry was developing his autopilot system, another organization, the Societé de Production Armand Deperdussin had developed a central control lever that could operate ailerons and stabilizers, as well as pedals that could control the rudder. Previously, in early aircraft, each employed different control systems and mechanisms to manipulate the flight control surfaces, with pilots having to understand the flying characteristics of each type. The Deperdussin invention would simply this process, making the operation of aircraft control surfaces somewhat more uniform, and would significantly complement the efficacy of Sperry’s autopilot.

As the interest in and the development of such systems accelerated in the years between 1914 and 1918, early work began on developing the world’s first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which would be guided toward a specific target through the use of gyroscopes. However, with the First World War requiring the expertise of aeronautical engineers globally to boost the war effort, this project was shelved, at least for the time being.

Post-war autopilot development

With the First World War over by 1918, engineers and inventors would once again turn their attention to the automation of flight. The period saw the introduction of a technology referred to as a ‘pilot’s assister’, which, unlike Sperry’s early gyroscopic design, used a pneumatically-spun gyroscope to manipulate an aircraft’s flight controls. The technology was introduced by the United Kingdom’s Royal Aircraft Establishment in 1930.

The further development also included the introduction of hydraulically powered servomechanisms and other advancements that, while increasing the complexities of automated systems, would allow for the simplification of flight in adverse weather conditions or at night, leaving pilots to concentrate on overall flight safety. Sperry’s autopilot system became particularly popular during the 1920s and 1930s as airline transport took off and people began to travel more and further afield.

Indeed, legendary aviator Howard Hughes installed one on the Lockheed Electra aircraft he used to set a new world record for circumnavigating the globe in three days and 19 hours. Hughes’ plane also happened to be fitted with innovative radio and navigational equipment, including a ‘navigation robot’ invented by WL Maxon, which could calculate the aircraft’s exact geographic location.

With the start of World War Two in 1939, which the US would join in 1941, the use of gyroscopic autopilots and navigation computers became far more common, which maximized the capabilities of many aircraft types.  

Commercial applications

After the war came the boom in commercial air travel, and even more demand for flight automation as sector lengths increased rapidly. Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, studies showed that an increasing number of fatal aircraft accidents resulted from human error rather than mechanical failure, so increased automation was pursued as the primary means to make air travel safer.

Even during the 1950s, commercial aircraft would employ five crew members in the cockpit comprising two pilots, a flight engineer, a radio operator, and a navigator. Over the next few decades, with airlines needing to cut costs, automation, and improved technology would eventually make those not flying the aircraft redundant, with the introduction of the Boeing 747-400 in 1989 being the first long-haul aircraft that finally eradicated the need for even a flight engineer.

In June 1965, the Hawker Siddeley Aircraft Company of the UK introduced its new Autoland system on a British European Airways Trident at London Heathrow Airport (LHR). Developed and supplied by Smiths Aircraft Industries, its autoland system was a pioneering feature that allowed crews to operate in almost zero visibility conditions. This permitted the Trident to be guided automatically to an airfield, approach the runway, flare, touchdown, and then roll out from the landing runway without a pilot interfering with the controls.  

The introduction of automated landing capability was the next big development in autopilot and would go on to revolutionize aircraft operations in low-visibility conditions, a technology that is still in use today.

Then, in 1986, Airbus demonstrated the first incarnation of a fully automated ‘fly-by-wire’ system on a testbed A300 widebody. Fly-by-wire (FBW) is the generally accepted term for those flight control systems that use computers to process the flight control inputs made by the pilot or autopilot and send corresponding electrical signals to the flight control surface actuators.

The Fly-by-wire arrangement replaces mechanical linkage and means that the pilot inputs do not directly move the control surfaces. Instead, inputs are read by a computer that in turn determines how to move the control surfaces to best achieve what the pilot wants in accordance with which of the available flight control laws is active. Fly-by-wire technology has also become commonplace, ensuring that the aircraft remains both safe and flyable in even the most extreme of circumstances, and is thought to have saved hundreds of aircraft from potential accidents over the years.       

The process of flight can be divided into seven crucial stages – taxi, take-off, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing phases. Until recently, modern autopilot using computer technology has been capable of automating all these stages except taxi and take-off. However, on January 16, 2020, Airbus successfully performed the first fully automatic vision-based take-off using an Airbus Family test aircraft at Toulouse-Blagnac Airport (TLS) in France. The advanced technology of the aircraft was fully exploited with the pilots simply monitoring the aircraft’s performance.

Modern-day autopilots

The modern autopilot is now commonplace in many aircraft, including even the most basic training aircraft and helicopters, too. However, there are still some smaller and older aircraft that remain hand-flown with traditional stick-and-rudder flight controls that require 100% manual input. There are even some smaller commercial passenger planes, such as the Britten-Normal Islander, that are supplied without autopilots as such types are only designed for very short flight sectors. Generally speaking, a commercial airliner must be equipped with an autopilot if it has a capacity of 20 passengers or greater.

Unlike historic autopilot, modern-day autopilot embraces computer software to control many aspects of the airplane, as seen in many modern aircraft types, both civil and military. There are three basic levels of control used in the modern autopilot- 

• A single-axis autopilot that controls an aircraft in the roll axis only. 
• A two-axis autopilot controls an aircraft in the pitch axis as well as roll, with limited pitch oscillation-correcting ability. It may receive inputs from onboard radio navigation systems to provide true automatic flight guidance once the aircraft has taken off until shortly before landing, or its capabilities may lie somewhere between. 
• A three-axis autopilot adds control in the yaw axis as well as pitch and roll, giving fully automated flight control capability in all three flight axes.

These three levels of control are ascending in their level of aircraft control and capability. Generally speaking, it is only a three-axis autopilot that is used in the more modern and complex aircraft, but which adds the most capability to the cockpit and reduces pilot workload the most – the initial goal for Sperry’s first gyroscopic automated system.

Has automation gone too far?

There can be no doubt that the invention of the autopilot has revolutionized aviation since it was first invented by Lawrence Sperry in 1912. Not only has it allowed aircraft and their crews to fly faster, further, and safer, but it has effectively shrunk the world through the ability to take long-haul flights with as few as two of three cockpit crew members onboard.

However, in more recent times, there have been arguments that the reliance on cockpit automation has gone too far. In June 2009, an Air France Airbus A330 flying from Rio De Janeiro to Paris crashed into the Atlantic Ocean killing all 228 passengers and crew onboard. The subsequent accident report found that mishandling by the pilots ultimately led to the aircraft entering a stall from which they were unable to recover.

It was determined during the investigation that the aircraft’s autopilot had suffered temporary inconsistencies in the airspeed measurements it was receiving from the aircraft due to icing accumulating inside the pitot tubes on the exterior of the aircraft. These inconsistencies caused the autopilot to disconnect.

The crew reacted incorrectly to this, causing the aircraft to enter an aerodynamic stall which the pilots failed to correct. Opponents of aircraft automation later argued that the over-reliance on cockpit automation had come at the expense of basic flying skills, with the Air France crew unable to identify a developing stall or have the expertise to recover the situation effectively.

Summary

Modern-day autopilots incorporate many capabilities that Sperry would have never imagined when he proudly (and spectacularly) displayed his first invention in Paris in 1914. Such new developments include aircraft maintaining a pre-set cruise speed, accelerating or reducing speed in a-pre-programmed manner, tracking a route plan input into the navigation computer by the flight crew before departure, or even aligning the aircraft with the runway, and performing a fully automated take-off or landing.

Yet, the principles of the autopilot remain the same as in Sperry’s day, and his contribution to modern-day air travel cannot be disputed. The advancement of autopilot from a basic gyroscopic-based instrument to modern-day computers that are capable of manipulating all phases of flight is a transition that many remain in awe of.

In little over a century, the enormous capabilities of cockpit technology and automation have seen pressures relieved from pilots to continue improving the safety of flight. But in an age where the development in computer technology is unrelenting and the desire by growing numbers of us to travel by air continues to surge, where the path of cockpit automation will lead us in the future is anyone’s guess.

Twenty-five years on from this terrible accident, we look back at what led up to the crash, what was learned from it, and why the pilots Ted Thompson and Bill Tansky are now hailed as heroes for their actions during the incident.

Alaska Airlines Flight 261: A routine flight

Flight AS261 was a routine service traveling from Licenciado Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico, to Seattle–Tacoma International Airport in Washington, with an intermediate stop at San Francisco International Airport in California.

On January 31, 2000, this flight was to be operated by a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 registered N963AS. It was eight years old and had logged just over 26,000 flight hours and 14,000 cycles since delivery.

Flying the aircraft were two highly experienced former military pilots. Captain Ted Thompson, aged 53, had flown more than 4,000 hours in MD-80s, while First Officer Bill Tansky, aged 57, had accumulated over 8,000 hours on the MD-80 family. Previously, Thompson had flown for the Air Force, Tansky for the US Navy.

In all, there were 88 occupants on board: 83 passengers and five crew. The incoming crew had enjoyed a completely normal journey, with no problems or issues reported. It was a beautiful day for flying, with good visibility and light winds. The flight took off on time at 13:37 PT, with First Officer Tansky at the controls.

First indications something wasn’t right: A problem with the climb

Tansky took the aircraft manually to around 6,200 feet, where he engaged the autopilot. The aircraft continued to climb towards the target altitude of 31,000 feet, but indications were starting to suggest something wasn’t right.

The aircraft was slowing down, and so too was the climb. The aircraft levelled off at 26,000 feet, so Tansky disconnected the autopilot and took manual control again. There are no voice transcripts from this part of the flight, as only the last 30 minutes were recorded, but undoubtedly First Officer Tansky would’ve noticed a large force of as much as 50 pounds was required to keep the aircraft climbing.

The trim on the horizontal stabilizer – the rear wing of the aircraft – was not working. As such, Tansky had to rely on elevators alone to climb to 31,000 feet. As they levelled off, the force required to maintain altitude lessened, but was still at around 30 pounds of pressure. Something was badly wrong.

The pilots went through their quick reference handbook, performing all the necessary checklists to try and clear the fault. For almost two hours, Tansky flew the aircraft manually as they attempted to work out what was happening. At 15:47, the autopilot was reengaged, shortly after which Captain Thompson requested a diversion to Los Angeles International (LAX).

You might wonder why the pilots didn’t simply return to their point of origin as soon as a problem was experienced. With the information they had at the time, though, a straight return would have meant an overweight landing at high speed, which is always a risky situation. The airplane wasn’t uncontrollable at this point, and was flying fairly stable at altitude, so the decision was made to continue on their route, burn more fuel, and divert to LAX.

Conditions at LAX were favorable, and Thompson was in discussion with operations to get landing performance figures calculated for the MD-83. No emergency had been declared, so Alaska Airlines Flight 261 was being treated as a regular incoming flight. But the captain was still trying to figure out how to fix this problem.

The ‘two thumps’ that signalled the beginning of the end of Alaska Airlines Flight 261

At 16:08, the cockpit voice recorder heard Captain Thompson saying, “I’m going to click it off. You got it?”

He was referring to the autopilot, which was disconnected around 10 seconds later. A loud clunk was heard, followed by two faint thumps from the back of the aircraft. Then the tone indicating the movement of the horizontal stabilizer sounded.

“Holy sh*t!” First Officer Tansky can be heard exclaiming as the aircraft pitched nose down and began to dive. The pilots fought the aircraft for over 80 seconds as it plunged towards the ground, and it took a combined effort of almost 130 pounds of force to pull the plane out of its dive. 

At around 24,000 feet, the crew got the aircraft largely under control. They radioed air traffic control, advising that the situation had become much worse, and again talked to Alaska Airlines maintenance for advice. Los Angeles air traffic control handed the plane over to approach control in preparation for its arrival at LAX.

But Thompson knew the aircraft was in bad shape, and made the first of many heroic decisions that would save many lives that day. He declined the direct to the airport and requested vectors out over the bay to test out the landing configuration in a safe space, away from populated areas.

Having established the flaps were still working, and that the aircraft felt slightly more stable with flaps deployed, the pilots were ready to make their approach. Sadly, though, it was not to be.

‘At least upside down we’re flying’: The terrifying final moments of Alaska Airlines Flight 261

A series of faint thumps were heard on the cockpit voice recorder, along with First Officer Tansky asking, “You feel that?”. The aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer had pitched to 3.6 degrees down, making it even harder to maintain the aircraft’s altitude. 

At 16:19, an awful noise of grinding and snapping metal was heard and the aircraft pitched forward violently. Again, the 88 passengers and crew entered a steep dive, hurtling towards the bay at more than 200 knots.

This time, instead of trying to pull out of the 70 degree dive, Captain Thompson pushed into it, rolling the aircraft over into an inverted position. He called out, “Push, push, push and roll,” with both pilots attempting to get the aircraft back onto the right keel.

Because of the roll, the pitch decreased from minus 70 degrees to 29 and then minus 9 degrees. They were now flying inverted over the bay. On the cockpit voice recorder, the two pilots can be heard shouting commands between each other to ‘kick rudder’ and ‘push the blue side up,” but despite their efforts, it was impossible to recover.

Some of Captain Thompson’s last words to his copilot were, “Got to get it over again, but at least upside down we’re flying.” However, these words were almost immediately followed by the sound of several compressor stalls and the right engine spooling down, as the extreme angle of oncoming air starved the engine inlets and caused the powerplants to fail.

At 16:21, Thompson could be heard saying “Ah, here we go…”

The aircraft impacted the Pacific Ocean at high speed, and all 88 souls on board were lost instantly. 

Several other aircraft in the vicinity had witnessed what happened, and the crash site was quickly identified. At 700 feet, the water was too deep for Navy divers, so Naval ships brought sophisticated sonar equipment and deep-diving submersibles to aid in the underwater investigation. A flotilla of Coast Guard vessels, local fishing boats and lifeguard patrol craft combed the surface, collecting debris and body parts from the crash site.

While retrieving the remains of the victims was a key priority, it was also imperative that the teams located the so-called ‘black boxes’ from the aircraft – the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder. Only then could investigators begin to figure out what had gone wrong.

What caused Alaska Airlines Flight 261 to crash?

Investigators were already suspecting that some fault in the tail of the airplane had contributed to the crash, so as well as the black boxes they were anxious to retrieve the rear empennage assembly. When it was brought up from the ocean floor, the investigators were shocked by what they found.

The MD-83 was a revised version of the popular DC-9, a rear-engined passenger jet with a distinctive T-tail design. This tail was made up of a vertical stabilizer with a rudder, to control yaw, and a horizontal stabilizer to control pitch. In the MD-83, its horizontal stabilizer is around 40 feet wide, and the entire wing moves up and down to alter the pitch of the aircraft.

The movement of this part is controlled by a ‘jackscrew’, held in place by an Acme nut. When the motor turns the screw, it moves up and down on the nut, causing motion of the horizontal stabilizer.

When the jackscrew assembly of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 was retrieved and inspected, the first thing investigators noticed was that the screw was no longer mated with the nut. This nut and screw assembly has very thick threads, so to find it separated was very unusual indeed.

Secondly, they noticed a piece of brass curled around the jackscrew like a slinky. It didn’t take long to realise this was the remnant of the threads inside the assembly, which held the jackscrew in place. With no thread left on the nut, the screw was turning but having no effect on the aircraft control.

Investigators also found the assembly was completely free of grease, with no lubricant at all on any of the moving parts. This would have exacerbated the wear on the nut as the parts rubbed together, ultimately causing the assembly to fail.

The jackscrew would have been moving freely for much of the flight, held in place by only a single retaining nut. That nut was never intended to support the loads generated by the airplane, and so grew weaker and weaker as the flight went on. Finally, it gave way entirely, allowing the horizontal stabilizer to move well beyond its aerodynamic limits, forcing the nose of the plane down.

It was clear that the jackscrew assembly had failed spectacularly, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable despite the best efforts of the heroic pilots. But why had this failsafe part ultimately failed?

To figure that out, investigators had to go back to basics. Back when the DC-9 was first certified, McDonnell Douglas had recommended lubricating the assembly every 300 to 350 flight hours. When the DC-9 became the MD-80, it was extended to 900 hours. Then, in 1996, a further revision included the lubrication requirement at every C check, which happened every 3,600 hours or 15 months, whichever came first.

When these changes came about, Alaska Airlines applied to extend the lubrication interval to eight months, which was actually more conservative than the recommendation. The FAA immediately approved this, but it was later found out that none of the original engineers at McDonnell Douglas had approved or even been consulted on the inclusion of lubrication at a C check. The task was simply bundled into other maintenance jobs without consideration for the impact.

Compounding this was Alaska Airlines’ misinterpretation of the requirements for checking the wear on the Acme nut. As the nut was made of softer metal than the screw, it would wear first, and needed to be checked at regular intervals. The manufacturer recommended every 30 months or 7,200 hours, whichever came first.

But Alaska Airlines had put it into their manuals that checks should be done every 30 months, without putting an hourly limit on it. Considering the busy flying schedule Alaska was operating at the time, the hours would be approaching 10,000 by the end of a 30-month period. N963AS was right at the end of its 30-month window when the accident occurred.

Following scrutiny of maintenance records at Alaska Airlines, discrepancies were quickly found in both their maintenance manual and how the maintenance work was actually being carried out at their various technical centers. On top of that, important management functions were unfilled at the airline, which had caused confusion about who was responsible for what.

Who was responsible for the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261?

The cause of the crash was determined to be a loss of control due to the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim jackscrew assembly. Contributing to this was Alaska Airlines’ extended lubrication schedule and wear checks, which had both been approved by the FAA.

These two elements, combined with poorly executed lubrication practices, meant wear went undetected and ultimately led to the complete failure of the thread inside the Acme nut. 

In all, 24 recommendations came out of the investigation. Some included giving clearer guidance to pilots on not repeating actions in checklists when it comes to the trim system, and not engaging autopilot when there are flight control problems.

But most of the recommendations were aimed at airlines and the FAA, and Alaska Airlines in particular. After the incident, the lubrication schedule on the MD-80 family was immediately changed to every 650 hours. 

NTSB board member John J. Goglia wrote of the catastrophe: “This is a maintenance accident. Alaska Airlines’ maintenance and inspection of its horizontal stabilizer activation system was poorly conceived and woefully executed … NTSB has made several specific maintenance recommendations, some already accomplished, that will, if followed, prevent the recurrence of this particular accident. But maintenance, poorly done, will find a way to bite somewhere else.”

The NTSB’s final report concluded that Alaska Airlines’ improper maintenance practices were the primary cause of the crash, and the FAA’s failure to enforce proper oversight was a contributing factor.

Captain Ted Thompson and First Officer Bill Tansky were posthumously awarded the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) Gold Medal for Heroism, in recognition of their extraordinary airmanship and courageous efforts to save Alaska Airlines Flight 261.

This medal is the highest honor ALPA can award, given to pilots who have displayed exceptional skill and bravery in the face of extreme danger.

However, the Concorde, along with countless other military aircraft of various sizes and descriptions, could never have made that leap beyond Mach One, the official speed at which an aircraft is traveling faster than the speed of sound, without the bravery and spirit of adventure of one pilot and his unwavering passion for aviation.  

That pilot was Charles Elwood Yeager (1923-2020), more commonly known as ‘Chuck’ Yeager. During his lifetime, Yeager transformed from a quiet schoolboy growing up in rural West Virginia into one of the most famous pilots in aviation history.  

Yeager’s list of achievements in a flying career that spanned several decades is remarkable in itself. But his one crowning achievement came in 1947, in a rocket-powered bullet-shaped aircraft named after his wife, when he became the first human ever recorded to travel beyond the speed of sound.  

AeroTime looks back at Chuck Yeager’s life and career, his major career accomplishments, and how he became the fastest man to travel by air at a time when such an achievement seemed little more than an impossible dream.  

Background 

Yeager was born on February 13, 1923, into a farming family, and was raised in the rural town of Hamlin, West Virginia. One of five siblings, Yeager would attend the local high school, where he became a keen athlete. His first taste of the US military would come in his teenage years when Yeager attended a Citizens Military Training Camp at Fort Benjamin Harrison in Indiana during the summers of 1939 and 1940. 

In February 1945, at the age of just 22, Yeager married Glennis Dickhouse. The couple went on to have four children together.     

Early flying career and WW2 

In September 1941, with the Second World War already underway in Europe, though the US was yet to become embroiled in the conflict, Yeager enlisted as a private in the US Army Air Force (USAAF). Aged just 18 and still too young to be considered for flight training (something that had been of particular interest to Yeager in his younger years), he settled for starting his military career as a mechanic, based at George Air Force Base in Victorville in the Californian desert.  

However, Yeager’s career path and life course would soon be altered when the US entered the war in 1941, just three months after he had enlisted. Having previously applied for flight training, Yeager would later be accepted and begin training to become a USAAF pilot in September 1942. Upon receiving his wings and graduating from flight school in 1943, he initially trained to become a fighter pilot with the 357th Fighter Group based in Nevada. Having successfully qualified to fly aircraft in aerial combat missions, Yeager, along with his pilot cohort, was immediately shipped overseas to face the war head-on as combat flyers.  

Yeager would be deployed to one of the most active theaters of war at that time – the Western Front in Europe, repelling the Nazi advance across the continent. Holding the rank of Flight Officer in the USAAF, Yeager flew the legendary P-51 Mustang single-engine fighter aircraft in numerous dogfights, often over enemy lines. Yeager would be based at RAF Leiston in the East of England, an airfield located close to the coastline and a convenient location for battle-damaged allied aircraft to land back at after heading back across the North Sea from conflict zones. Yeager flew his P-51 with the 363rd Fighter Squadron of the USAAF. He nicknamed the aircraft ‘Glamourous Glen’ after his then-girlfriend, and later wife, Glennis.        

In March 1944, on his eighth mission, Yeager survived being shot down over France. He managed to escape to neutral Spain with the assistance of the French Resistance. During the several weeks he spent in their company, Yeager assisted the Resistance in the construction of explosives, a skill he learned from his father growing up back in West Virginia. He was eventually repatriated back to England in May 1944, and upon his return, he was awarded the Bronze Star for helping a fellow US airman escape over the Pyrenees mountain range to Spain. 

A USAAF rule prohibited airmen who had been shot down over enemy lines from returning to fly combat sorties over enemy territory. Nevertheless, Yeager remonstrated this point with Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower himself. Following D-Day, as the war began to tail off, Yeager returned to fly combat missions, as Eisenhower yielded to Yaeger’s demands. One notable shootdown accredited to Yeager was one of history’s very first air-to-air victories against a jet-powered fighter aircraft. Yeager managed to catch a German Messerschmitt 262 just as it approached to land, shooting it down in the process.    

Before the end of WW2 was officially declared, Yeager was promoted to the rank of captain before the end of his tour. He flew his 61st and final combat mission on January 15, 1945, and subsequently returned to the United States in early February 1945. Across his numerous missions, Yeager was credited with shooting down an impressive 11.5 enemy aircraft (the half credit is from a second pilot assisting him in a single shootdown). Notably, on October 12, 1944, Yeager was awarded the accolade of ‘Ace in a Day’ by the USAAF, credited with the shooting down of five enemy aircraft in one mission. 

Post-war test flying career 

Following the end of WW2, and with hostilities over, as an ‘evader’ – an airman who had evaded enemy capture after being shot down – Yeager was afforded the privilege of his choice of next deployment. Having just married and with his new wife pregnant, Yaeger elected to be based at Wright Field, an airbase in West Virginia close to where he was living once more.   

With his experience as an aircraft mechanic, along with his impressive war record and the number of flight hours he had amassed flying combat missions in Europe, Yeager became a test pilot tasked with flying recently repaired aircraft. Taking up this position brought Yeager to the attention of the US military’s Aeronautical Systems Flight Test Division. 

Yeager would subsequently be selected to undertake training at the USAAF Air Command Flight Performance School, following which he would be stationed at the Muroc Army Airfield in West Virginia, now more commonly known as Edwards Air Force Base, the current home of ‘Air Force One’. 

Around this time, serendipitously for Yeager, US aircraft manufacturer Bell Aircraft Corporation was busy designing what they hoped would become the world’s first jet-powered aircraft capable of breaking the sound barrier and flying supersonically – an aviation milestone yet untouched by human engineering.  

Yeager was selected as one of just a handful of test pilots for the supersonic flight project. He flew countless test missions onboard various Bell-designed aircraft between 1945 and 1947, becoming familiar with their handling capabilities but also their vulnerabilities – what pilots at the time would refer to as ‘Gotchas’.  

Introducing the Bell X-1  

According to the US National Air and Space Museum, the Bell XS-1 had been developed as part of a cooperative program initiated in 1944 by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), NASA’s predecessor, and the USAAF, later to become the US Air Force (USAF). The program’s mission was to develop a special manned transonic and supersonic research aircraft.  

Breaking the sound barrier was a feat long thought impossible by many, with engineers and scientists struggling to find solutions to the myriad complexities presented by an aircraft flying at such huge speeds. These would include but were certainly not limited to, the immense aerodynamic forces and stresses imposed on the airframe.      

On March 16, 1945, the Army Air Technical Service Command awarded a contract to the Bell Aircraft Corporation of Buffalo, New York, to develop three transonic and supersonic research aircraft. The Army assigned the aircraft developed under the contract as the XS-1, standing for Experimental Sonic, although this would later be renamed more simply as the Bell X-1. In all, Bell Aircraft built three rocket-powered X-1 aircraft – small, lightweight, and noticeably bullet-shaped.  

The X-1 aircraft was constructed from high-strength aluminum, with propellant tanks fabricated from steel. Yet, despite its sleek lines (designed to resemble the bullet from a .50-caliber machine gun), the aircraft contained a huge amount of equipment. Inside the aircraft were two rocket propellant tanks, twelve nitrogen spheres for fuel and cabin pressurization, the pilot’s pressurized cockpit, three pressure regulators, a retractable landing gear, the wing spar structure, a 6.000-pound-thrust rocket engine, and more than five hundred pounds of special flight-test instrumentation. 

Through their research, engineers at Bell Aircraft discovered that bullets could maintain stability at supersonic speeds due to their shape, leading them to design the fuselage of the X-1 along similar lines. The aircraft also featured a cigar-shaped body paired with a set of thin, straight wings. These helped to minimize drag and ensure aerodynamic efficiency at high speeds. This streamlined design helped mitigate the effects of shock waves generated by the aircraft traversing through the sound barrier. 

The rocket engine was specifically designed to produce short bursts of intense power, perfect for taking the aircraft through the sound barrier. However, with the engine using a highly volatile cocktail of liquid oxygen and alcohol as propellants, every flight was a risk, requiring extreme concentration and expert handling by the pilot. 

Though originally designed for conventional ground take-offs, the X-1 aircraft was subsequently air-launched from the underbellies of Boeing B-29 or B-50 Superfortress aircraft. The performance penalties and safety hazards associated with operating rocket-propelled aircraft from the ground caused mission planners to resort to air-launching instead. The engines used in the development of the Bell X-1 would later influence the design of spacecraft propulsion systems and advanced military, expertise that is still in use today.  

Breaking the sound barrier 

Having built its X-1, the aircraft that the company hoped would become the first to break the sound barrier, Bell Aircraft now needed someone to fly it. However, the company’s plan would come temporarily unstuck when Bell’s lead test pilot, Chalmers ‘Slick’ Goodlin, demanded a one-off payment of $150,000 (worth around $2.2 million in 2025) to fly the machine and take it supersonic. Little did Goodlin know that by making such demands, he was passing up the chance of a lifetime to have his name forever recorded in aviation history. 

With its budget already limited, Bell turned to its next candidate for the job. This was Yeager, who leaped at the opportunity to fly faster than anyone had ever flown before, such was his undiminished appetite for adventure. 

On October 14, 1947, Bell X-1 aircraft #1, piloted by Yeager who, continuing a lifelong theme, had nicknamed the aircraft ‘Glamorous Glennis’ after his wife, became the first airplane to fly faster than the speed of sound (also known as Mach One). Air-launched from the bomb bay of a Boeing B-29 bomber after a 30-minute climb to 20,000 feet (6,000m) above Rogers Dry Lake in the southern California desert, the X-1 used its rocket engine to climb up to its test altitude of 42,000 feet (13,700m) and began its test run. 

On this, the ninth powered flight of the X-1, the Mach meter onboard jumped from Mach .965 to Mach 1.06, faster than the speed of sound. The experimental aircraft reached a staggering 700 mph (1,127 kph) during the test flight, shattering the sound barrier with an iconic sonic boom that could be heard by the engineers back on the ground. 

It was later reported that the transition to supersonic flight was remarkably uneventful for the X-1. After flying supersonically under power from its rocket engine for 20 seconds, Yeager cut the power and glided down to the lakebed for a safe landing. Without braking equipment onboard, the aircraft traveled for over two miles before finally coming to a halt. The world’s first piloted supersonic flight lasted 14 minutes, from release from the B-29 to landing back in the desert. 

In total, the Bell X-1 flew 78 times during its test program, often with Yeager at the controls. It managed to fly as fast as Mach 1.45 and as high as 71,900 feet (21,900m) during those flights. Additionally, the X-1 program gathered crucial flight data about transonic and supersonic flight for the NACA/NASA program of aircraft development, which would lead to a series of ‘X’ experimental piloted and unpiloted projects that explore and expand the possible envelopes of flight – projects that continue today. 

At the time, many feared that supersonic flight was impossible because of an ‘invisible barrier’ that may destroy aircraft should they pass through it at supersonic speeds. However, Yeager’s exploits had put such thoughts to rest and opened the world’s eyes to a host of new possibilities. As Yeager later stated, “I realized that the mission had to end in a letdown because the real barrier wasn’t in the sky but in our knowledge and experience of supersonic flight.” 

What came next for Yeager? 

Having become the poster boy for global aviation achievement and won various awards for his outstanding accomplishment in breaking the sound barrier, Yeager went on to break several other speed and altitude records in the following years, while working on various high-profile (and some more secretive) NACA missions. In 1953, Yeager flew a new experimental aircraft, the X-1A, in a series of test flights dubbed ‘Operation NACA Weep’. He set a new speed record of Mach 2.44 in it on December 12, 1953, becoming the fastest flight ever flown by humans at that time.  

The new record flight, however, did not entirely go to plan. Shortly after reaching Mach 2.44, Yeager lost control of the X-1A at about 80,000 ft (24,000m) due to a phenomenon known as inertia coupling, little understood by aeronautical engineers at the time. With the aircraft simultaneously rolling, pitching, and yawing out of control, Yeager dropped 51,000 ft (16,000m) in less than a minute before regaining control at around 29,000 ft (8,800m). He then managed to land without further incident.  

In 1962, he became the first commandant of the USAF Aerospace Research Pilot School, a US military institution tasked to train and produce astronauts for the Gemini, Apollo, and Mercury space programs, as well as the USAF itself. However, with combat flying still in his blood, Yeager would later return to the USAF as a fighter pilot in the rank of Squadron Leader, operating from bases in West Germany, France, Spain, and California. Later, during the Vietnam War, the USAF tasked Yeager to train its bomber pilots and also flew 127 air-support missions himself in theater.  

In the later part of his career with the USAF, Yeager was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. After 34 years of service with the USAF, Yeager formally retired from the Air Force on March 1, 1975 – fifty years ago in March 2025.  

Post-retirement life

Following his retirement from the USAF in 1975, as Brigadier General Charles Yeager, he continued to serve the USAF as a consultant test pilot. He also served on multiple overseas defense missions in Europe and South Asia for the USAF in a consultancy pilot role. 

On October 14, 2012, at the age of 89 and to mark the 65th anniversary of his legendary supersonic flight in the Bell X-1, Yeager made his last ever supersonic flight, this time onboard a USAF McDonnell Douglas F-15D. Yeager, acting as co-pilot to Captain David Vincent of the USAF, flew the F-15D (dubbed ‘Glamorous Glennis III’ for the special occasion) at over Mach One from Nellis Air Force Base in California.  His wife Glennis died in 1990, predeceasing Yeager by 30 years.

Having successfully broken the sound barrier for one last time, Yeager gave a speech in which he stated, “All that I am, I owe to the Air Force“. He died on December 7, 2020, at the age of 97 in a hospital in Los Angeles. However, as a WW2 hero, flying ace, long-serving military aviator, and above all, the first pilot to break the sound barrier, his enduring legacy, as well as his rightful place in the aviation history books, was assured.  

Awards and legacy  

Throughout his life, Yeager flew more than 360 different types of aircraft over a 70-year flying career. However, during his lifetime, and indeed since, Yeager accumulated almost as many awards as he did flight hours during his flying days.  

In 1966, Yeager was inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame. In 1973, he became the first pilot to be inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame, arguably aviation’s highest honor. In 1975, he received the Silver Medal from the US Congress for “contributing immeasurably to aerospace science by risking his life in piloting the X-1 research airplane faster than the speed of sound”. 

Yeager later received the Congressional Silver Medal from President Gerald Ford in 1976. In 1981, he was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame, and four years later, in 1985, Yeager was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagan. He was inducted into the Aerospace Walk of Honor in 1990, and in 2003, the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington DC ranked him as the fifth greatest pilot of all time. Lastly, Charleston Airport, located near Yeager’s hometown in West Virginia, was renamed in his honor in 1985 as West Virginia International Yeager Airport (CRW).  

Through his endeavors with NACA in the 1940s, and his experiences flying the Bell X-1, Yeager paved the way for the future of supersonic flight. With his seemingly boundless bravery, excellent flying skills, and unsurpassed passion for aviation helped to break the sound barrier, along with the expertise of countless designers, engineers, and others, Yeager made it happen. 

The lucky few to have flown supersonically since, including military and space aviators, as well as the thousands of passengers who got to fly on Concorde during its service life, can all proudly wear the badge to say that they have broken the sound barrier. For the rest of us, our hopes now lie with such companies as Boom Supersonic to allow us the opportunity to one day join that elusive club. Until then, we can only imagine how it must feel to travel faster than a bullet and to break the sound barrier at Mach One, strapped to a rocket-powered machine.  

On that fateful day of March 27, 1977, there were 583 fatalities between the KLM Boeing 747 and the Pan Am Boeing 747 ‘Clipper Maid of the Seas”. Only 61 survivors somehow escaped the inferno that engulfed the airport runway.  

Neither before nor since has there been an aviation disaster that has so profoundly affected so many lives, from those who died to the loved ones they left behind.  

Following the tragedy, investigations were launched to ensure that everything possible was done to prevent an event of this magnitude from ever being repeated. 

As with so many untimely and unexpected deaths, the accident gave rise to some searching questions about how the devastating event could have been avoided. 

But perhaps one of the cruelest twists of fate is that neither the 248 people on KLM Flight 4805 nor the 396 on Pan Am Flight 1736 were even meant to be in Tenerife on that day.  

First sequence of events 

On March 26, 1977, the Pan Am Boeing 747 registered N736PA left Los Angeles Airport (LAS) for Spain, with a scheduled re-fuel and crew change at John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) in New York.  

As the Pan Am flight made its journey to Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, a KLM Boeing 747, registered PH-BUF, left Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS) on March 27, 1977, for the same final destination.  

At the time of these flights, a terrorist group known as the Canary Islands Independence Movement (CIIM) was attempting to force the Spanish government to cede control of the islands.  

On March 27, 1977, the group planted a bomb in a passenger terminal florist shop in Las Palmas Airport and detonated it, injuring eight bystanders.  

KLM Royal Dutch Airways’ Boeing 747-206B PH-BUF Rijn pic.twitter.com/ijYGsd5Xvp

— Skies-of-Glory (@violetpilot1) March 29, 2023

Members of the terrorist group then threatened to explode a second bomb. With police fearing the worst, the airport was closed and all flights suspended. 

Flight crews on both the Pan Am and KLM 747s were told to divert to Los Rodeos Airport, a predecessor of Tenerife North Airport (TFN), to keep all passengers safe and away from the dangers in Gran Canaria.  

Arrival in Tenerife  

The two 747s were not the only aircraft that were asked to divert to Tenerife due to the dramatic events that were unfolding in Gran Canaria.  

According to the Spanish accident report, once both jets had landed, they were among four other aircraft that had been parked due to the congestion caused by the number of flights being diverted to Tenerife.  

At the time, Los Rodeos was a small regional airport with one main runway and was not accustomed to handling the volume of traffic it was suddenly experiencing.  

Located 2,077 feet (633 meters) above sea level, Los Rodeos was also prone to rapid weather changes with fog and low-lying cloud sometimes causing operational issues.  

The site was now crowded with aircraft parked anywhere they could fit, from the taxiway to the various aprons.   

When the airport reopened, the Pan Am 747 was ready to leave promptly, but its pathway was blocked by the KLM 747 which had also elected to refuel with 55,500 liters of jet fuel.  

As explained in the subsequent Spanish investigation report, once refueled the KLM flight was told by air traffic control (ATC) to taxi down the main runway to the approach end where it should proceed to backtrack. 

OTD in 1977, the Tenerife Airport Disaster reminded us all of how important clear & concise communications are in the world of aviation. 583 fatalities #Tenerife pic.twitter.com/prp3F3GI9m

— Andy (@andyturner) March 27, 2024

At 17:02, around five minutes before the fatal crash, the Pan Am flight crew called the airport tower to request confirmation that it should taxi down the runway. 

The tower confirmed this and stated that they should leave at the third taxiway to the left to clear the runway for the KLM 747’s takeoff.  

At this point the weather around the airport was changing rapidly, with dense clouds rolling over the runway and visibility dropping from 500m (1600ft) to less than 100m (330ft). 

There were also no taxiway markings and both crews were told that the runway center line lights were out of service. 

As the KLM flight reached the runway end, it completed a 180-degree turn to face down the runway for takeoff.  

As the KLM captain began to advance the throttles, the first officer advised that they had not yet been given take-off clearance.  The captain responded with “No, I know, go ahead, ask.” 

The KLM crew contacted the control tower, confirming they were ready and waiting for ATC clearance. The controller then gave KLM its clearance and told them to stand by for take-off clearance. 

However, according to Dutch investigators, before the controller could inform the pilots of their full clearance, the KLM Boeing 747 had already started its take-off run.   

‘We are now at take-off’

“The [KLM] captain asked him to request it, which he did, but while the co-pilot was still repeating the clearance, the captain opened the throttle and started to take off. Then the co-pilot, instead of requesting take-off clearance or advising that they did not yet have it, added to his read-back, ‘We are now at take-off’,” the investigation report stated. 

The report continued: “The tower, which was not expecting the aircraft to take off as it had not given clearance, interpreted the sentence as ‘We are now at take-off position’ and the controller replied: ‘O.K., … stand by for take-off… I will call you’.” 

The Pan Am’s crew heard the conversation and informed ATC that they were still “taxiing down the runway”. The controller confirmed that he heard the message and asked the pilots to “report runway clear”. 

When the Pan Am crew replied “okay, will report when we are clear,” the KLM crew then began discussing their reply as the message was audible up in the Dutch cockpit.  

While the first officer and flight engineer discussed whether the Pan Am had exited the runway, the captain emphatically declared “Oh, yes,” continuing the take-off. 

The investigators noted that “perhaps influenced by his great prestige, making it difficult to image an error of this magnitude on the part of such an expert pilot, both the co-pilot and the flight engineer made no further objections”. 

Moment of impact

With around nine seconds to impact, the Pan Am crew, who had overshot the third taxiway turning due to the low cloud, saw the KLM 747 hurtling towards them and tried their best to take evasive action. 

Desperate attempts to accelerate off the runway were sadly in vain. 100 meters from impact, having spotted the Pan Am 747, the KLM flight crew applied full back pressure, prematurely rotating. 

However, it was too late. The fuel-ladened KLM struck the Pan Am 747, ripping the US jet apart. 

A violent explosion engulfed the KLM aircraft further down the runway, so much so that when firefighters arrived, they focused their efforts on the Pan Am 747, believing that the other plane was unrecoverable. 

A total of 234 passengers and 14 crew died on the KLM flight. On the Pan Am aircraft, 317 passengers and nine crew died. There were only 61 survivors, most of whom were sat towards the front of the aircraft.   

A single KLM passenger, Robina van Lanschot, chose to remain in Tenerife and never reboarded the flight. She became the sole survivor of KLM Flight 4805. 

Investigation conclusions 

The accident investigators later concluded that the fundamental cause of the disaster came down to the fact that the KLM captain took off without clearance and did not obey the tower’s order to “stand by for takeoff”. 

The KLM captain also failed to interrupt take-off when the Pan Am flight reported that it was still on the runway, and when replying to the flight engineer’s query as to whether the plane had already left the runway, “replied emphatically in the affirmative”. 

The report also questioned why a pilot who had the technical capacity and experience of the KLM captain could “commit a basic error in spite of all the warnings repeatedly addressed to him”. 

According to the report, the captain was aware of strict rules in the Netherlands around limitation of duty time, and that if he did not takeoff within a relatively short period of time, might have needed to interrupt the flight. 

The report said that the weather conditions “undoubtedly make a pilot’s decision regarding takeoff and landing operations much more difficult”. 

Also highlighted was the fact that two transmissions took place at the same time. 

“The ‘Stand by for take-off, I will call you’ from the tower coincided with Pan Am’s ‘We are still taxiing down the runway’, which meant that the transmission was not received with all the clarity that might have been desired,” the investigation report stated. 

The report also recognized that other factors had played a role, such as the fact that when the controller was told “We are now at takeoff,” he did not understand that the aircraft was actually taking off, because to his mind permission had not been given. 

The fact that the Pan Am 747 had failed to leave the runway at the third turning was also considered to be a contributing factor, along with the unusual circumstances of aircraft being forced to taxi on the runway. 

Following the disaster, changes were made within the industry, enforcing the use of standardized, concise and unambiguous language to improve safety.   

Through the establishment of crew resource management, overall safety in aviation greatly improved too, with an emphasis on all flight crew members actively voicing their safety concerns and being acknowledged. 

With a fleet of around 1,000 aircraft operating over 5,000 flights daily and serving 290 cities across six countries, Delta was ranked as the world’s third-largest airline in 2024, carrying over 200 million passengers and operating 141,000 commercial flights. However, it was not always like this. From the humblest of beginnings, with just a handful of fairly rudimentary propeller planes, to becoming the leviathan it is today, the history of Delta has taken several twists and turns over the company’s first century of flying.  

AeroTime dives into the history of Delta, its background, its growth, and through a series of strategic mergers and acquisitions over the years, examines how the company has become the major global airline it is today.  

The founding years

Huff Daland Dusters, the predecessor of Delta, began operations in Macon, Georgia, in 1925. Becoming the world’s first aerial crop dusting company and using modified First World War aircraft to spread insecticide over cotton fields, Huff Daland would appoint Collett Everman Woolman, known as CE Woolman, as its Vice President and Field Manager.

A student at the University of Illinois, from which he graduated in 1912 with a degree in agricultural engineering, Woolman’s first paid job was to manage a 7,000-acre cotton farm in Mississippi that was locked in a battle with an infestation of the boll weevil insect, which was destroying its valuable cotton crops. The experience prompted Woolman to explore new ways to spread insecticides over fields, leading him to become a pioneer in aerial crop dusting and bringing him to the attention of the founders of Huff Daland Dusters.

With its crop dusting business up and running as of March 2, 1925, the company moved to a new base in Monroe, Louisiana, a few months later. As the first commercial agricultural flying company,  Huff Daland’s fleet of 18 aircraft, known as the Huff Daland Duster Petrel 31, were quickly in hot demand as cotton farmers of the Deep South fought to protect their crops from destruction. Crop-dusting operations were offered from Florida to Arkansas and from California to Mexico.

Despite its early success, Huff Daland decided to sell its crop dusting division in 1928, upon which Woolman seized the opportunity. He, along with the financial support of several local businesses in Monroe, purchased the company from its owners. Reflecting its Southern roots, and in particular its home in the Mississippi Delta region of the US, the newly purchased company would be renamed as Delta Air Service.  

In 1928, spying an early commercial opportunity to diversify, Woolman began expanding the company’s operations beyond crop dusting to include passenger and mail transportation. Woolman extended Delta’s services to operating the first international air mail route on the west coast of South America (Lima to Talara) on behalf of Pan American’s South American subsidiary, Peruvian Airways, in 1928.

By 1929, Delta began to offer commercial passenger flights, marking the beginning of the company’s transformation into a leading global airline. That year, Delta operated its first passenger flight from Dallas, Texas, to Jackson, Mississippi, with stops in Shreveport and Monroe, Louisiana. Service would later be expanded to Birmingham and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and Meridian, Mississippi.

The airline would later introduce Travel Air S-600-Bs on its passenger services, becoming the airline’s first fully-dedicated passenger-carrying aircraft. Known as the “Limousine of the Air”, the Travel Airs could carry five passengers and a single pilot. Woolman himself described the aircraft as “accommodating five passengers and pilot, toilet facilities, and space for hand luggage. In cold weather, the cabins are warm and comfortable and with the interesting feature of scenic observation of the surrounding country, afford the ideal means of modern travel.”  

1930 to 1939

With its reputation for transporting passengers reliably and safely established, Delta would later begin services to Atlanta, Georgia, on June 12, 1930 – a city in which the company would eventually establish its home.

However, with the Great Depression sweeping across the US throughout the early 1930s and the domestic economic recession biting hard, the company would stumble on hard times. A lack of government mail contracts due to falling demand led to Delta suspending all passenger services on October 1, 1930. As many passenger services had been subsidized by the carriage of mail on the same flight, without the mail, these flights became uneconomic to operate. The company reorganized and renamed itself as Delta Air Corporation.

With the harder times behind it, in 1934, Delta received a contract to operate US Air Mail route 24 from Fort Worth in Texas to Charleston, South Carolina, and resumed operations with a Stinson Model T aircraft in September 1934. The resumption of passenger services would commence the following month, and the company assumed the name of Delta Air Lines.

The later years of the decade would see the airline go from strength to strength as demand for its services increased and larger, faster, and more comfortable aircraft became available. In 1936, the airline would introduce the 14-sear Lockheed 10 Electra to its fleet, onboard which passengers would be served with pre-prepared boxed lunches by the co-pilot. By 1938, the airline was earning more revenue from passenger flights than from its lucrative crop dusting business, which had continued to operate as a separate business throughout the 1930s.

Into the 1940s and WW2

With an ever-expanding route network and fleet, Delta introduced the trusted and reliable Douglas DC-2 and DC-3 aircraft into its fleet in 1940 and began the process of moving its headquarters to Atlanta. That same year, Delta introduced female flight attendants, branded ‘stewardesses’  by the airline for the first time. The cabin crew was even tasked with handing out bottles of a product made by another well-known Atlanta-based company – Coca-Cola.

With the move to Atlanta from Monroe completed in 1941, the ‘Big Peach’ would become the new center point of the airline’s route network, serving 16 cities from the Georgia state capital. However, with the Second World War raging across various theaters worldwide by this point, Delta was called upon to contribute to the US war effort. In 1942, Delta assisted in modifying 916 aircraft, overhauling over 1,000 aero engines and cockpit instruments, as well as training US Army pilots and mechanics and operating cargo supply routes for the US military.

Post-war prosperity

With the war effort winding down by 1945, Delta celebrated its 20th anniversary that year and was honored by the US National Safety Council for operating more than 300 million passenger miles to date without a passenger or crew fatality. Also, at this time, Woolman, the visionary entrepreneur who started it all, was promoted to become the airline’s President and General Manager. In 1944, the airline carried its one millionth revenue passenger and began operating longer services, such as Chicago to Miami flights with newly delivered Douglas DC-4 aircraft.

By 1947, and once again spotting a gap in the market from which it could benefit, Delta opened a cargo-only subsidiary and began operating scheduled cargo flights between US airports, while the airline also opened its first division to sell vacation packages to Florida, originally known as Millionaire Dream Vacations, and later as Delta Dream Vacations.

In 1948, one of the early airline alliances was created with St Louis-based Trans World Airlines (TWA). Under the agreement, TWA crews would fly Delta-owned aircraft from Cincinnati to Detroit, while Delta crews would fly TWA planes southwards from Cincinnati to Atlanta, Miami, and Dallas. By this point, Delta had also received its first transcontinental Douglas DC-6, which ushered in the era of pressurized passenger cabins, air conditioning, seat tray tables for inflight meals, and a six-seat ‘Sky Lounge’ for premium passengers.

The 1950s – the dawn of the jet age  

With the arrival of a new decade, new aircraft continued to be delivered to Delta, broadening the airline’s capabilities even further. Corvair 340s arrived from the US manufacturer, capable of cruising at 240 mph (384 kph) and carrying 44 passengers in comfort.

In 1953, Delta began a process of acquiring smaller competitors to gain footholds in markets where it did not yet have a presence, a process that has continued throughout its history. The merger with Chicago and Southern Airlines in 1953 brought Delta its first international routes outside of the continental US, serving points in the Caribbean and to Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. Along with the newly acquired airline, Delta also took over that carrier’s frequent flyer scheme.

In 1954, and with its first truly long-haul aircraft arriving in the shape of the four-engine Lockheed Constellation, Delta took the opportunity to introduce a first class service for the first time. Known as ‘Golden Class’ service and initially introduced on the carrier’s Constellations and Douglas DC-7s, this introduced the concept of reserved seats, where Golden Crown customers could pre-select their chosen seat at check-in.

With expansion continuing unabated, in 1955, Delta pioneered the hub-and-spoke network planning system, later adopted by all major US carriers at their respective hub airports. The structure saw Atlanta become a cross-connecting point, with passengers based in small and medium-sized southeastern communities to transfer seamlessly and effortlessly to more distant, larger cities, given that no point-to-point services existed. Under the hub-and-spoke system, arriving and departing flights were arranged in banks and were scheduled to achieve maximum operational efficiency in Atlanta by reducing connecting times to a minimum.   

As the 1950s continued, Delta would continue to score milestone industry ‘firsts. ’ The airline opened its first first-class lounge in 1957 (now known as Sky Clubs) in Atlanta, while in 1958, more luxurious Douglas DC-7s arrived in the company’s fleet.

However, a seismic shift would occur in 1959, when Delta would receive its first Douglas DC-8 – the company’s first turbojet-powered airliner. Capable of a staggering 590mph and able to carry 119 passengers, the arrival of the DC-8 would turn the corner for the airline and begin its (and its passengers’)  journey into the smoother, more luxurious, and faster jet age.

As the decade closed out and with the arrival of the DC-8, the airline took the opportunity to refresh its corporate image. For the first time, the carrier would introduce its new logo, which still endures today. The iconic red, white, and blue triangle logo, known more commonly as the ‘Delta Widget’ was unveiled.  Resembling the swept-wing appearance of a jet aircraft, the logo would become synonymous with the airline for decades to come.

1960s – Delta and the computer age

Along with the introduction of the DC-8, Delta expedited its embracing of the jet age in 1960 with the first of its Convair 880 jet aircraft. In the same year, the airline opened its new Jet Base maintenance center at Atlanta Airport. Known as the Delta Technical Operations Center (TOC), the subsidiary would, over time, become one of the world’s largest maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) providers worldwide.

With its newly acquired jet fleet, Delta could fly its passengers further and faster. In 1961, nonstop transcontinental flights began from Atlanta to Los Angeles. Delta also began linking California and the Caribbean. In 1962, along with the introduction of first class and economy class travel on all of its four-engine jet aircraft, a Delta DC-8 became the first passenger plane to complete a Los Angeles to Atlanta flight in less than three hours (2h57m) – a new record.

In 1964, Delta introduced another world first in the shape of its in-house SABRE computerized reservations system, which would go on to revolutionize the airline ticket reservations industry through the ability to book and confirm flights instantly. The system could handle bookings around five times faster than any other computerized reservations system in use at the time, and SABRE access would later be sold to countless airlines worldwide.

While 1965 would see Delta introduce the Douglas DC-9 as its newest domestic workhorse to take over flights previously operated by the now-aging turboprops, 1966 would sadly see the death of CE Woolman, the airline’s founding father. The airline would later present a reconditioned Huff Daland Duster to the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC, in his honor, and where it remains as an exhibit today.   

1966 would also see Delta become the first US carrier to employ the country’s first African American flight attendant (Patricia Murphy), and while its crop dusting operation was finally closed down that year after 41 years of successful operations, its first all-cargo Lockheed L-100 Hercules freighter arrived to ramp up the carrier’s outsized cargo services.

1970s – marking 50 years of flying

Another major four-engined milestone would be reached in 1970 when the airline’s first Boeing 747 arrived fresh from Boeing in Seattle. Offering far more range than any other aircraft in its fleet and greater capacity, the jumbos would introduce a new level of service on Delta’s transcontinental US services while introducing the carrier’s first audio inflight entertainment system for passengers. By 1970, Delta operated an all-jet passenger airplane fleet with all its piston-engined airplanes retired.   

Seeking a greater foothold in the lucrative northeast air corridor, in 1972, Delta merged with Northeastern Airlines, which operated routes from New York and Boston to Florida, Canada, the Bahamas, and Bermuda using Boeing 727s and Fairchild FH227 turboprops. In 1973, the first of Delta’s widebody Lockheed L1011 TriStars arrived, making Delta one of the only airlines to operate the Boeing 747, Douglas DC-10, and the Tristar simultaneously.

With the deregulation of the US air transportation system passed into law in 1978, Delta was keen to take advantage of the new opportunities that this development presented. Delta began its first transatlantic service, operating from Atlanta to London using the 747s on which it also introduced a business class offering for the first time.

As the airline marked 50 years of passenger service in 1979, it began transatlantic flights to Frankfurt and also became the first airline ever to board one million passengers in a single city in one month (Atlanta, August 1979).  

1980 to 1989

The 1980s were a period of both consolidation and expansion for Delta, with several other industry firsts cementing Delta’s place in the airline history books. In 1980, for example, it became the first airline to make a major move from film to video for in-flight entertainment, and it equipped its entire transatlantic Tristar fleet in the early 1980s with video entertainment screens in all classes. Meanwhile, in 1981, the airline opened its first dedicated frequent flyer scheme, SkyMiles, which still exists today.  

With oil prices and recession biting at the airline’s revenue figures but in desperate need of more efficient aircraft, in 1982. Delta employees raised over $30 million through payroll deductions to purchase the company’s first Boeing 767 widebodied jet – a type that was set to transform the airline’s entire operation. To become known as ’The Spirit of Delta‘, the aircraft would eventually be retired and preserved in Atlanta at the Delta Flight Museum, where it can still be visited today.

In 1983, Delta introduced computer-generated boarding passes and automated advance seat selection, greatly improving the boarding process in gate areas, while the narrowbody Boeing 737 family would be introduced to passengers for the first time – another type that still remains in the fleet today. The following year, the first Boeing 757 would arrive, while Delta also began the process of affiliation with smaller regional carriers through a franchise/codeshare model to launch its ‘Delta Connection’ network of feeder services.

In 1987, Western Airlines was merged into Delta, making the carrier the fourth-largest US carrier and fifth-largest in the world. The merger also provided Delta with new hubs in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City and routes serving Mexico and Alaska. Its new presence on the West Coast also allowed Delta to begin transpacific flights for the first time, with flights from Portland in Oregon to Tokyo, Japan. 

Bring on the 1990s

If the 1980s had been a period of steady growth, the 1990s would start at a much faster pace. In 1990, and with conflict in the Middle East raging in the Gulf War, the airline contributed to the US Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) during Desert Storm and Desert Shield operations during 1990 and 1991, flying military charters on behalf of the US Government.

With the Gulf War came a large number of airline failures due to the huge rise in oil prices, the largest of which was historic US legacy carrier Pan Am. In 1991, and able to finance another timely opportunity, Delta purchased Pan Am’s transatlantic route system and the Pan Am Shuttle (which operated high-frequency services between New York, Boston, and Washington DC). Along with the airline’s routes, Delta inherited Pan Am’s entire fleet of Airbus A310s while also becoming the first US carrier to introduce the McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 trijet widebody.

1992, the airline became the first global carrier to introduce a moving map display in passenger cabins, along with seat-back telephones and live radio news broadcasts. In 1995, Delta was named as the official airline of the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games to be held in its hometown of Atlanta, Georgia. The airline repainted 767 ‘The Spirit of Delta’ into a special commemorative color scheme to make the occasion. Also, in 1995, Delta became the first US carrier to ban smoking on all flights worldwide.

In 1996, Delta launched the first of two attempts to break Southwest Airlines’ stranglehold on the US low-cost market with the launch of Delta Express. Launched to offer flights from Florida to the Northeastern US cities, the airline existed until 2003 before being merged back into the airline’s mainline operation. The following year, Delta became the airline to board more than 100 million passengers in a single year, began the expansion of its US to Latin America routes, and introduced a new aircraft livery – the airline’s first in almost 30 years.

In 1999, as the century drew to a close, the airline’s newly delivered Boeing 777 widebody fleet introduced personal video screens at each seat in economy class for the first time in the airline’s history.

Delta enters the 21st century

If the 1990s had been a progressive decade for Delta, there was to be no let-up in the pace during the first part of the new century. In 2000, the airline was a founding partner in SkyTeam, a global alliance that partnered Delta with Aeroméxico, Air France, and Korean Air. Additionally, after just four years and following public disapproval of the airline’s 1996 livery, the color scheme changed again, incorporating an updated and reworked Widget logo.

In 2001, following the collapse in air travel due to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Delta posted its first financial loss in six years.

In 2003, Delta implemented the largest US domestic codeshare alliance with Continental and Northwest Airlines while also launching Song, a reworking of the Delta Express low-cost model using Boeing 757s on leisure routes. Both Continental and Northwest Airlines would later join SkyTeam as full members in 2004.

On September 14, 2005, Delta filed for reorganization protection under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code while in late 2005, Delta began one of the largest one-month expansions in its history with services commencing on seven new Latin American and Caribbean routes. By 2006, the carrier offered flights to more destinations than any global airline, with 124 new nonstop routes. That same year, the company began services to southern Africa with flights to Johannesburg via Dakar, Senegal. At the end of the year, ‘The Spirit of Delta‘ was finally retired to the Delta Flight Museum after spending 70,697 hours in the air.

In 2007, Delta emerged from Chapter 11 protection while also fending off a hostile takeover bid from US Airways. Another new aircraft livery was introduced to represent the rebirth of the airline (its third in a decade). That same year, the airline announced a transatlantic joint venture with Air France. Additionally, the completion of the Open Skies agreement between the US and the European Union allowed Delta to fly to London-Heathrow Airport (LHR) for the first time.

A significant merger between Delta and Northwest was announced in 2008, which transformed Delta into an even more significant global airline with major passenger and cargo operations in every region of the world. The merger also saw the incorporation of the Northwest fleet into that of Delta’s, with several types seeing Delta service once again including DC-9s and the Boeing 747 as a result.

In 2009, Delta expanded its transatlantic joint venture with the Air France-KLM Group and became the only US airline since Pan Am to serve six continents with the introduction of nonstop flights between Los Angeles and Sydney, Australia, while SkyMiles became the world’s largest loyalty program with more than 74 million members.

2010 – 2025

Expanding its global reach even further, in 2013, Delta purchased Singapore Airlines’  49% share in UK carrier Virgin Atlantic, an airline with which it had a codeshare deal in the late 1990s. Then, in 2015, the airline introduced five differentiated on-board products: First Class, Delta One (business class), Delta Comfort+, Main Cabin, and Basic Economy. The carrier also continued on its journey of acquisition with the purchase of a 3.5% minority stake in China Eastern, expanding the airline’s presence and customer choice in Asia’s largest market.

The airline ended the following year (2016) with a record 241 total days without a mainline flight cancellation, while appointing Ed Bastian as its CEO, who continues in the role today. In 2017, Delta reported a company record adjusted pre-tax income of $6.1 billion and acquired 49% of Aeromexico. Lastly, in 2017, the airline received the first of its new Airbus A350-900 widebodies – the carrier’s new international flagship aircraft. 

In 2018, another Airbus first was announced with the introduction of the first Airbus A220 into the carrier’s mainline fleet. Delta also launched a joint venture partnership with Korean Air with a jointly-operated hub in Seoul in 2018.

Delta Air Lines today

Over the past few years, and despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Delta has continued to grow, with new aircraft, new partnerships, and an increasing number of passengers each year. 2024 was the airline’s biggest yet, with full-year revenues reaching $5 billion and passengers topping 200 million.

Speaking in January 2025, Ed Bastian stated, “2024 was a great year for Delta, with our results reflecting differentiation from the industry and increased durability.  Our people finished the year strong, delivering industry-leading operational and financial performance.  Sharing Delta’s success is core to our culture, and I’m excited to recognize our people’s outstanding efforts with $1.4 billion in profit-sharing payments“.

“Into 2025, we expect strong demand for travel to continue, with consumers increasingly seeking the premium products and experiences that Delta provides. Our differentiated strategy and best-in-class operations, combined with demand strength and an increasingly constructive industry backdrop, position us to deliver the best financial year in Delta’s 100-year history, with pre-tax income greater than $6 billion and free cash flow of more than $4 billion.”

According to ch-aviation, Delta’s original fleet of 18 Huff Daland Dusters has grown to 990 mainline jet aircraft with an average age of 15.2 years. The current fleet includes –

• 75 Airbus A220s (three on order)
• 57 Airbus A319-100
• 55 Airbus A320-200
• 198 Airbus A321-200 / A321neo (12 on order)
• 75 Airbus A330-200/300s/ 900neo (six on order)
• 35 Airbus A350-900 (three on order)
• 80 Boeing 717-200
• 240 Boeing 737-800/900ER
• 114 Boeing 757-200/300
• 61 Boeing 767-300ER

To mark the airline’s centenary in 2025, the airline will be introducing a pair of specially painted new Airbus airplanes into its fleet wearing commemorative liveries. An Airbus A321neo (registered as N589DT) and Airbus A350-900 (registered N527DN) will appear across the airline’s network in 2025, acting as flying billboards to tell the world where the airline has come from since 1925 and the direction in which the carrier is traveling.

It would have taken a major leap of faith by Collett Everman Woolman in 1925 to see where his vision may have ended up a century later. Yet, from the airline’s humble beginnings, preventing weevils from eating crops to flying a brand new Airbus A350 carrying hundreds of passengers thousands of miles across the world would take anyone with a pioneering spirit some time to contemplate, whether that be in 1925 or 2025.

While Henry Ford may have revolutionized ground transportation with his iconic Model T ‘Tin Lizzie’ first automobile between 1909 and 1926, his interests also lay in other forms of transportation. Recognizing the huge potential of air travel following World War One, Ford introduced his Tri-Motor aircraft which was affectionately known as the ‘Tin Goose’. The new airliner aimed to create and stimulate a whole new market for airline travel when it was introduced.

With three engines and providing unprecedented passenger-focused comfort levels,  Ford’s Tri-Motor addressed concerns about reliability and comfort which had up until that point hampered the growth of airline travel. From 1926 to 1933, Ford Motor Company produced 199 Tri-Motors which served with several major US carriers of the age.

The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) of the US, which also organizes the annual AirVenture extravaganza, will offer flights its Ford Tri-motor in 2025 to enable more people to experience what flying must have been like in the early days of airline travel. Its aircraft, a Ford model 4-AT-E had an illustrious career, first flying in 1929 and later becoming the flagship of Eastern Air Transport, precursor to Eastern Airlines.

Following its airline career in the US, EAA’s Tri-Motor ventured to Cuba and served routes to the Dominican Republic. It underwent various transformations once it returned to the US, from crop dusting to firefighting to carrying smoke jumpers. Following its survival after a disastrous thunderstorm in 1973, the Tri-Motor was eventually restored by EAA staff, volunteers, and other Ford Tri-Motor operators nationwide after an intensive 12-year effort. It eventually returned to the skies in 1985 at the EAA fly-in convention marking a new chapter in its long flying career.

EAA’s Tri-Motor has also appeared in two feature films, Jerry Lewis’ 1965 comedy ‘The Family Jewels’, and the 2009 crime drama ‘Public Enemies’ starring Johnny Depp.

According to the EAA, having been displayed briefly in the EAA Aviation Museum in Oshkosh, the Tri-Motor will resume its mission of flying passengers in 2025 which will include stopovers in cities such as St Louis (Missouri), Little Rock (Arkansas), Springfield (Illinois), Bolton (Mississippi), and St Cloud (Minnesota). The tour will end with a triumphant homecoming back at the Tri-Motor’s base at Wittman Regional Airport (OSH) in Oshkosh at the EAA AirVenture event being held between July 21 and 25, 2025.

At certain appearances, not only will visitors be able to visit the Tri-Motor and see it up close but also take a short sightseeing flight over the local area. Tickets will be sold for Tri-Motor flights priced at $105 for adults and $85 for children (aged 17 and under). Given the aircraft’s unique cabin design, every seat is a window seat, with each flight experience lasting approximately 30 minutes, of which about 15 minutes will be in the air, plus a briefing from the crew. Given the lack of soundproofing in the antique plane, passengers are advised to bring ear defenders or earplugs!

For those especially keen to try some different flying, the Tr-Motor will be accompanied at some of its appearances by EAA’s wartime bomber, its B-25 Mitchell Bomber named ‘Berlin Express’. EAA’s B-25 was first accepted by the US Army Air Force in December 1943. The airplane served in World War 2 as an administrative aircraft, stationed at bases in Washington, Colorado, and California. The Berlin Express name and accompanying markings come from the airplane’s appearance in the 1970 satirical war film ‘Catch-22,’ based on the Joseph Heller novel of the same name.

John Hemingway joined the RAF as a teenager and was part of Prime Minster Winston Churchill’s ‘Few’ to whom the British nation became indebted for defending the country’s skies in 1940 from the German Luftwaffe during World War II.  

Beholden to the efforts and heroism of the Battle of Britain pilots, in August 1940, Churchill famously declared: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”   

Originally from Ireland, Hemingway, a young Royal Air Force Pilot Officer, played a critical role in seismic events during the war, including defending British and allied troops as they retreated to the beaches of Dunkirk. 

Hemingway battled against German aircraft above France in May 1940 after the French were invaded by Nazi forces intent on defeating Britain’s neighbors.  

By the Spring of 1940, the German military would prove too powerful, so Hemingway and his Hawker Hurricane – along with the remaining pilots, aircraft and crews – returned to the UK. 

As part of the No. 85 Squadron, during the Battle of Britain Hemingway would form one of the front-line alliances of the 11 Group (Fighter Command) to respond to Luftwaffe attacks.  

In the course of his career Hemingway was forced to bail from his aircraft four times, including once while on his way to meet the King in July 1941 to be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). 

As the last surviving pilot from the Battle of France and Battle of Britain, Hemingway epitomized the character of ‘The Few’ and was said by the RAF to always have a “twinkle in his eyes as he recalled the fun times with colleagues”. 

“He never saw his role in the Battle of Britain as anything other than doing the job he was trained to do. He didn’t see it as an epoch-making moment in the history of the RAF or the United Kingdom,” the RAF stated on March 17, 2025. 

The air force added: “His passing marks the end of an era and a poignant reminder of the sacrifices made by those who fought for freedom during World War II.” 

Royal Family leads tributes to ‘Paddy’ 

Since his passing on March 17, 2025, tributes from the highest levels in British life have been pouring in, including those from the Royal Family and the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.  

In a social media post, Prince William wrote: “I was sad to hear about the passing of John ‘Paddy’ Hemingway this morning, the last of “The Few”. We owe so much to Paddy and his generation for our freedoms today. Their bravery and sacrifice will always be remembered. We shall never forget them.” 

I was sad to hear about the passing of John ‘Paddy’ Hemingway this morning, the last of “The Few”. We owe so much to Paddy and his generation for our freedoms today. Their bravery and sacrifice will always be remembered. We shall never forget them. W

— The Prince and Princess of Wales (@KensingtonRoyal) March 18, 2025

Keir Starmer joined the tributes, writing: “Very sad to hear of the passing of Group Captain John ‘Paddy’ Hemingway, the last known Battle of Britain pilot. His courage, and that of all RAF pilots, helped end WWII and secure our freedom. We will never forget their bravery and service. Thank you, John ‘Paddy’ Hemingway.” 

Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton, Chief of the Air Staff wrote: “It is with great sadness that I heard of the passing of John ‘Paddy’ Hemingway today. I am thankful that I was able to meet and spend time with him in Dublin, most recently in January this year. Paddy was an amazing character whose life story embodies all that was and remains great about the Royal Air Force.” 

Knighton added: “This was a generation who understood the importance of service and comradeship. A generation who believed that with hard work, clarity of purpose and a determination to succeed, they would not lose. Their efforts and the efforts of all our personnel past & present are the bedrock on which the Royal Air Force maintains the security of the UK at home and abroad.  Their sense of duty and willingness to put others before themselves should inspire those who will build the next generation Air Force.” 

Today, St Patrick’s Day 2025 the last known Battle of Britain pilot, Group Captain John 'Paddy' Hemingway DFC has sadly passed away.

Born in Dublin in 1919 he joined the RAF in 1938. A true gentleman, amazing character and outstanding example to us all.

May he rest in peace. pic.twitter.com/lGY32Hu8Ie

— UK Defence in Dublin (@UKDefenceDublin) March 17, 2025

Westminster Abbey also contributed, with a social media post that read: “We were saddened to hear of the death of John ‘Paddy’ Hemingway, the last surviving Battle of Britain pilot. The service and sacrifice of those who fought in the Battle is honoured at an annual Service of Thanksgiving and Rededication held here in the Abbey every September. The Abbey’s RAF Chapel is also dedicated to ‘The Few’ – the airmen who fought against extraordinary odds to defend the country from invasion in 1940. The chapel was unveiled by King George VI in 1947.”

Making the announcement via its social media channels on March 14, 2025, the RAF said that it would be resuming operations of all its aircraft again during the 2025 European air show display season. The BBMF unit, based at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, Eastern England operates five Spitfires and two Hurricanes, alongside a single Lancaster bomber (one of only two airworthy examples worldwide) and a Douglas DC-3 Dakota transport aircraft. All fleet members are flown by crew drawn from active RAF squadrons.

While its Merlin-powered Avro Lancaster bomber was cleared to fly again in July 2024 following an initial investigation by the RAF into the Spitfire accident, the reintroduction of the Spitfires and Hurricanes was postponed while other internal investigations were completed.

As reported by the AVweb publication, a UK Ministry of Defence spokesperson said,  “We can confirm that the RAF has cleared Merlin powered Hurricane and Spitfires to return to flying for the 2025 season. Whilst the investigation into the fatal accident involving a Spitfire Mk IX on May 25, 2024, continues, all available evidence has been considered in making the decision to return to flying.”

In a Facebook post, the BBMF added, “We look forward to seeing you around the country and having a great display season [in 2025] celebrating the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, and 80th anniversaries of VE and VJ Day.”

The cause of the crash involving Squadron Leader Long’s Spitfire which carried the squadron markings MK356 continues to be investigated by the UK Government’s Defence Accident Investigation Branch. The aircraft crashed shortly after take-off from RAF Coningsby into a field while heading to perform at a local air show. Long died at the scene from head and neck injuries caused by the aircraft impacting the ground. The aircraft was substantially damaged as a result of the accident.

The Rolls-Royce Merlin was a liquid-cooled, V12 piston engine that powered some of the most famous allied aircraft that operated during the Second World War, including the Spitfire, Hurricane, and the Lancaster. Designed to power the iconic Supermarine Spitfire fighter plane designed by RJ Mitchell, the aircraft played a crucial role in the Battle of Britain and became a symbol of British engineering excellence of its generation.

While the BBMF Spitfires and Hurricanes were grounded following the fatal crash, the numerous privately owned aircraft of these two types were unaffected by the grounding and continued to appear at airshows for the remainder of the 2024 season. Indeed, specially adapted two-seat Spitfires and Hurricanes based in the UK continued to offer experience flights for the rest of 2024, with prices starting at around £3.000 ($3,800) for a 30-minute flight in one of the legendary fighter aircraft.

From pioneering codeshare agreements to surviving bankruptcies and mergers, US Airways had a colorful history. The dream finally ended in 2015 when its merger with American Airlines saw the brand dropped for good. Nevertheless, its influence on modern aviation is far from forgotten.

A brief history of US Airways

US Airways’ history stretches right back to 1937, when a company by the name of All American Aviation was founded in Pennsylvania. Commencing operations in 1939, the company used small aircraft like the Stinson Reliant to deliver mail throughout the Ohio River valley.

In the late 1940s, the airline switched from airmail to passenger service, rebranding as All American Airways in the process. In 1953, the airline rebranded again, this time to Allegheny Airlines, a name that would stay in place for 26 years.

In order to run passenger services across Pennsylvania, Allegheny invested in turbine airliners including the Convair 540, Fairchild F-27 and DC-3. In 1965, it received its first jet – a Douglas DC-9-10, which was later followed by Boeing 727s, DC-9-30s and DC-9-50s.

As Allegheny grew, it began soaking up smaller airlines. Lake Central Airlines was absorbed in 1968, then Mohawk Airlines in 1972, making Allegheny one of the largest airlines in the northeast US. 

Even in these early days, this former incarnation of US Airways was breaking boundaries. Allegheny formed an agreement with Henson Airlines, a predecessor to Piedmont Airlines, which is considered to be the industry’s first codeshare agreement.

When deregulation came about, Allegheny changed its name to USAir to reflect its greater reach. It was the launch customer for the Boeing 737, which allowed the airline to expand into the south of the States. 

It changed its name to US Airways in 1997, introducing a new, fresh corporate identity. By the turn of the millennium, it was operating widebodies to Europe and was one of the biggest airlines in the US. It had established a low-cost carrier, ‘MetroJet’, and had bought the remains of Trump Shuttle for further expansion.

But with the new millennium came new problems.

Why did US Airways shut down?

Contrary to popular belief, US Airways did not shut down as such. Although it was suffering financially, it took the proactive step of consolidating with another airline, which ultimately saw its name and brand retired. Nevertheless, the post-millennial years were not kind to US Airways. 

The September 2001 terrorist attacks massively disrupted all airlines, but as the largest carrier at Washington National Airport, US Airways was disproportionately affected by its extended closure. The resulting financial impact saw it shut down its MetroJet subsidiary, furloughing thousands of employees. 

US Airways entered bankruptcy on August 11, 2002, but managed to secure a government loan and was able to exit fairly quickly. However, things were still difficult, and in 2004, it entered Chapter 11 protection for the second time.

In 2005, the airline merged with America West. It was a complicated merger, with various holding companies and new entities created. Nominally, America West was the survivor, although the merged airline decided to retain the US Airways name and America West’s ‘CACTUS’ callsign.

Things were looking up for US Airways in its new merged form. The airline began upgrading inflight services and excitement surrounded the testing of a new seatback entertainment screen in 2008. But then the fuel crisis of that year hit, sending airline costs skyrocketing. US Airways was forced to roll back all of its upgrade plans before they even got started.

The airline was struggling to maintain its service and the cracks were beginning to show. It was ranked last in customer satisfaction in the annual American Customer Satisfaction Index by the University of Michigan in 2008, and things were about to get even worse.

On January 15, 2009, a US Airways Airbus A320 flew into a flock of geese as it was departing New York City’s LaGuardia airport. Both engines lost power, and it was only thanks to the prompt actions of Captain Chesley Sullenberger that all 150 passengers and five crew members made it out of the aircraft alive.

Beyond this, the airline had some pretty good years. It remained profitable and had no further incidents or accidents. It earned the top spot in the Airline Quality Rating report in 2011 and secured landing slots at London’s Heathrow Airport for a new service from Charlotte.

But to survive in the US during the 2010s, airlines had to become big. Really big. Delta had merged with Northwest in 2008, United merged with Continental in 2010, and Southwest acquired AirTran in 2011. To remain competitive, US Airways needed to grow even further.

Ultimately, US Airways bought American Airlines out of bankruptcy. The American Airlines brand was favored, which meant US Airways would disappear by 2015.

What planes did US Airways use?

At the time of its merger with American Airlines, the US Airways fleet looked as follows:

All the aircraft, including the orders, were transferred to American Airlines. The A330s, 757s and E190s were all retired at the start of the pandemic in 2020. The 767s and old classic 737-400s never flew for American, and were retired in 2014. American airlines cancelled the order for the A350, electing to order more Boeing 787s instead.

The only part of the fleet still around today is the A320 family. It’s relatively easy to recognize the former US Airways aircraft by their registrations. If you find yourself on an American Airlines A320 family plane with a registration ending in UW or US, you can be pretty sure it’s a former US Airways aircraft.

If you’re really lucky, you’ll find an A320 family jet with a registration ending AW, e.g. N835AW, which is a nod back to the days of America West and likely an aircraft that has worn all three liveries.

Why was US Airways called Cactus?

The famous ‘CACTUS’ callsign was never actually US Airways’ designator. From 1979 until 2008, it used US AIR as its callsign, but when it merged with America West, the new airline retained CACTUS and dropped US AIR.

America West had been asked by the FAA to develop a unique callsign, after it was decided AMERICA WEST was too similar to AMERICAN and SOUTHWEST. It organized an employee contest to come up with a new designator, and CACTUS was the winner, beating other options including ROADRUNNER, FIREBIRD and PHOENIX.

Its home in the southwestern United States is synonymous with the giant Saguaro cacti, so the name fit well. When US Airways merged with America West, the merged airline kept the US Airways branding and name, but retained its CACTUS callsign.

Who bought out US Airways?

Although it wasn’t in the best financial shape, US Airways wasn’t actually bought out at all. Despite some misconceptions, US Airways in fact bought out American Airlines while it was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Ultimately, the US Airways name and brand would fade, but its DNA is still very much in the American Airlines we see today.

The first suitor was United Airlines. With US Airways in the same alliance as United, the merger would be easier, making it an attractive proposition. But despite extensive discussions during the early part of 2010, the deal wasn’t made, and United ultimately announced it would merge with Continental Airlines instead.

US Airways wasn’t the only airline in trouble in the early 2010s. AMR Corporation, parent company of American Airlines, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November 201l after losing more than $800 million in the first nine months of the year. Two months later, in January 2012, US Airways Group expressed an interest in taking over American Airlines.

After a year of discussions, the two airlines announced their plans to merge in February 2013. Despite attempts to block the merger, the companies overcame challenges and completed the merger on December 9, 2013. 

The two airlines operated as separate brands for a short while, but on April 8, 2015, American Airlines operated the final flight with the ‘CACTUS’ callsign. On October 17, 2015, US Airways made its final flight, taking off from Philadelphia as US Airways Flight 1939. After stops in Charlotte and Phoenix, it landed in San Francisco as American Airlines Flight 1939, whereupon the US Airways brand and all operations were officially terminated.

How US Airways changed aviation

US Airways and its predecessors laid the groundwork for much of modern aviation as we know it. Some of the initiatives the airline pioneered include:

• Hub-and-spoke operations: The airline strategically established hubs at major airports, which served as central connecting points for passengers. It’s a tried and tested business model today, but US Airways was one of the first. 

• Alliances: USAir’s expansion into Europe in the ‘90s saw it forming partnerships with Trump Shuttle and British Airways. Some Boeing 767s were even painted in BA livery but operated by USAir. It’s thought to be one of the first transatlantic alliances in the industry’s history.
• Codeshare: In 1967, US Airways predecessor Allegheny Airlines entered into an agreement with Henson Aviation which would become the USA’s first codeshare relationship. 
• Bulk ordering: Right before the rebranding to US Airways, USAir placed an order for up to 400 Airbus A320 family aircraft, with 120 firm orders included. At the time, it was the largest bulk aircraft request in history. Today, orders for hundreds of planes are commonplace, including at American Airlines, which placed an order for 260 new aircraft in 2024.

While the US Airways (and America West) brand is long gone, it’s certainly not forgotten. The DNA of this legacy airline seeps through into many aspects of modern aviation, and it will be remembered fondly for decades to come.

What led up to the Buddy Holly plane crash?

In the early part of 1959, Buddy Holly and his band were playing the ‘Winter Dance Party’ tour across the American Midwest, supported by emerging artists Richie Valens and J.P. Richardson, aka ‘The Big Bopper’. The route was poorly planned, with the band zigzagging between cities, sometimes traveling for ten or 12 hours a day.

Back then, there were no interstate highways, and driving was entirely on two-lane rural roads. The midwinter temperatures were extreme, sometimes down to −36 °F (−38 °C), with waist-deep snow. The buses used for the tour were wholly inadequate, frequently breaking down, often with non-functional heating. 

By February, the cold weather had begun to take its toll. Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper were coming down with the flu, and Holly’s drummer, Carl Bunch, was hospitalized with severely frostbitten feet after one of the buses broke down. 

On February 2, the bands played a concert at Clear Lake, just west of Mason City in Iowa. Their next destination was to be Moorhead in Minnesota, a good 365 miles (590 km) away. Frustrated with the scheduling of the tour and the poor quality of the buses, Holly made the decision to charter an aircraft to Fargo, North Dakota, the nearest airport to Moorhead.

Who got on Buddy Holly’s plane?

The group chartered a plane from Dwyer Flying Service in Mason City – a 1947 single-engine Beechcraft Bonanza. Registered N3794N, the aircraft seated three passengers plus the pilot, so there was competition for the seats. 

As J.P. Richardson was suffering from the flu, bass player Waylon Jennings gave up his seat on the flight so that J.P. could get some rest. Dion DiMucci, lead singer of Dion and the Belmonts, was due to fly but is said to have flipped a coin with Ritchie Valens for the seat: Valens won.

Ultimately, the three passengers were Buddy Holly, J.P. Richardson and Ritchie Valens. The plane was piloted by Roger Peterson, a 21-year-old commercial pilot and flight instructor. He had been flying since 1954 and had accumulated 711 flying hours, of which 128 were in Bonanza aircraft.

The Bonanza took off just before 1 am on February 3, 1959. Hubert Jerry Dwyer, owner of the flying service, observed the aircraft taking off in a normal manner, turning and climbing to around 800 feet (240 m). It was seen turning again, then the tail light was observed slowly descending before it disappeared from view.

Peterson was expected to make radio contact at around 1 am, but that call was never received. Multiple attempts were made to establish contact with the aircraft, but it couldn’t be reached. 

When daylight broke, Dwyer retraced Peterson’s route in another aircraft, finally spotting the wreckage around six miles (10 km) northwest of the airport. 

The Bonanza had impacted terrain at high speed with the aircraft banked 90 degrees to the right. The wingtip struck the ground first, carving a 12-foot (4 m) groove in the ground before breaking off. The fuselage rolled inverted, striking the ground nose first and sending the aircraft into a nose-over-tail roll. It flipped across the frozen field for more than 500 feet (160 m), coming to rest against a fence.

Holly, Richardson and Valens were thrown from the plane as it tumbled, while pilot Peterson was entangled in the wreckage. The county coroner reported that all four victims died instantly as a result of head trauma.

Investigating the Buddy Holly plane crash

The investigation was undertaken by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB, the precursor to the NTSB), which revealed several crucial failings that led to the accident. 

While Peterson had some experience in the Bonanza, he did not have a huge number of flying hours and, crucially, had only 52 hours of instrument flight training. He had passed the written examination for instrument flights, but had not fully qualified in instrument rating. 

As a company, Dwyer Flying Service was certified only to fly under visual flight rules. As such, conditions need to allow the pilot to see everything going on around the aircraft. On the night of the flight, visual flying would have been practically impossible, given the extensive low cloud and absence of a visible horizon. The area was sparsely populated, so there weren’t even ground lights to give the pilot a clue as to his orientation.

Peterson had completed his instrument training on planes equipped with an artificial horizon gyroscope. These place the sky at the top and the ground at the bottom of the instrument. However, the Bonanza used on the night of the fateful flight was equipped with an older Sperry F3 altitude gyroscope. These place the sky at the bottom and the ground at the top of the instrument, completely opposite to the artificial horizon he was used to seeing.

Contributing to the disastrous mix was a lack of communication to Peterson about flying conditions along his route. He’d gone to receive a weather update at around 5:30 pm that afternoon, when he was told cloud ceilings were 4,200 ft or better, with visibility of 10 miles or more.

But a flash advisory issued by the US Weather Bureau at 11:35 pm that night indicated that conditions had worsened. The advisory noted cloud ceilings had fallen below 1,000 and visibility had dropped to two miles or less with freezing drizzle, light snow and fog throughout the region. This information was never passed to Peterson.

In its report, the CAB noted that at the time of takeoff, the temperature was dropping, snow had begun to fall and visibility was getting worse. The winds were high and conditions were such that Peterson “could reasonably have expected to encounter adverse weather during the estimated two hour flight”. The report concluded that, considering all the facts regarding the weather and the visual flight certification of the company, “the decision to go seems most imprudent”.

What caused the Buddy Holly plane crash?

As to what happened in the moments before the crash, it is believed that, shortly after takeoff, Peterson entered an area of complete darkness with no definite horizon. Blinded by snow, he was reliant on instruments to understand the aircraft’s altitude and orientation.

But the aircraft was flying through gusty high winds and turbulence, which would have made the turn and bank indicator fluctuate. A more experienced pilot may have been able to compensate for this, but Peterson’s lack of experience likely meant he struggled to understand the information. The airspeed and altimeter alone wouldn’t have provided enough information to maintain control and pitch of the aircraft, which would have left him reliant on the gyroscope.

As we know, the gyro in question worked the opposite way to those that he was used to. It’s likely that, out there in the cold, dark night, Peterson thought he was climbing, whereas actually he was descending towards terrain. The fact that the aircraft struck the ground in a steep turn with the nose lowered supports this hypothesis.

In conclusion, the CAB stated:

The CAB duly issued a reminder to all pilots never to take a flight where they would need to rely on equipment that they were not proficient in using.

At the time of his death, Buddy Holly was just 22. Ritchie Valens was just 17, while the Big Bopper was the eldest on the aircraft at age 28. Four lives were cut short that day – three groundbreaking performers who would influence the music industry for years to come and a young pilot just starting out in his career.

Several memorials have been erected in memory of the tragedy. There’s a monument at the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, the site of their last performance, and at the crash site are stainless steel tributes to all four victims, with the entrance marked by replicas of Holly’s signature glasses.

Some estimates have placed the number of total lost and damaged aircraft during the war at over 100,000, a gargantuan number when you consider that today the United States (US) Air Force, the largest in the world, operates a fleet of under 6,000.  

But the true horror of World War Two has never been defined by the number of aircraft or vehicles destroyed but by the individuals onboard that sadly never returned home.  

Countries such as the Netherlands are still dedicating time and resources to recovering aircraft from World War Two , with the government suggesting as many as 400 aircraft may still lie undiscovered containing human remains. 

And even after 80 years those families who lost loved ones in World War Two still hold out hope that they can finally lay their relatives to rest, with the aircraft wreckage offering the chance for closure.  

And therein lies the motivation to continue locating these majestic planes, the opportunity to bring some peace and tell the stories of those that made their final flights during World War Two.  

AeroTime looks at some of the most fascinating stories that show why the hunt for World War Two aircraft wreckages should never stop. 

The Maid Of Harlech

During the Summer of 2007, the 65-year resting place of a downed Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft revealed itself on the beaches of north Wales in the United Kingdom (UK).  

Normally obscured by the tidal changes and buried beneath the sandy shores, the sudden appearance of the P-38 Lightning even took local residents by surprise and sparked a frenzy to discover the plane’s past.  

The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) helped to identify the P-38 Lightning and determined that the aircraft had been part of the 49th Fighter Squadron of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF).  

In September 1942, the pilot, Second Lt. Robert F. Elliott, 24, of Rich Square, North Carolina, unexpectedly ran into trouble while flying out of Llanbedr, Wales on a gunnery practice mission. 

He was forced to ditch his plane after a problem with his engines arose, but the skilled pilot was able to bring the aircraft safely down on a beach in Gwynedd and escape with his life.  

It was later explained that after flying for nearly an hour both of Second Lt. Elliott’s engines failed.  

Affectionally known as the Maid of Harlech, the aircraft’s skeletal remains lay buried two meters beneath the sand and have reappeared three times in the last 50 years. First in the 1970s, then in 2007 and most recently in 2014. 

At the time of the discovery in 2007, TIGHAR described the find as one of the “most significant WWII-related archaeological discoveries in recent history” and the group committed to preserving the aircraft in recognition of the Lightning’s “historical significance as the oldest surviving Eighth Air Force combat veteran”. 

Concerns over the years that the aircraft would be looted were helped in 2019 when Cadw, the historic environment service of the Welsh government, officially recognized the wreckage in law.  

The legislation meant that it was the first legally designated military aircraft crash site protected for its historic and archaeological interest in the UK. 

The nephew of Second Lt. Robert F. Elliott only learned of his uncle’s crash after studying his war diaries and in 2016 he visited the wreckage site, which remains hidden from public record. 

“I am honored and delighted that Cadw has given official recognition of my uncle’s P38F as a scheduled Ancient Monument. My uncle was among those brave and expert fighter pilots who served with distinction during WWII. My visit to the site with my wife Cathy in 2016 was very moving and emotional,” the pilot’s nephew said.  

He added: “The 49th Fighter Squadron, to which this aircraft was assigned, has a rich and storied history dating back to 1941 and is still active today as the 49th Fighter Training Squadron.” 

In 2009, Elliott told the BBC his uncle was reported missing in action only three months later during fighting in Tunisia, North Africa. 

Lady Be Good

On November 9, 1958, a group of British geologists were flying over the Libyan Desert when they spotted a desolate aircraft around 400 miles south of Soluch.  

Around four months later in March 1959, a search team reached the site where they found an abandoned B-24D Liberator bomber and perhaps the answers to an almost 16-year mystery.  

On April 4, 1943, 25 B-24Ds of the 376th Bomb Group took off from their Army Air Force (AAF) base at Soluch, Libya, for a high-altitude bombing attack against harbor facilities at Naples, Italy, according to the National Museum of the United States Air Force. 

Later that night 24 B-24Ds safely returned, but concerns began to grow for the last aircraft known as Lady Be Good.  

Unbeknownst to the AAF base, when the missing B-24D was returning from Naples it had flown past its destination and southward over the desert.   

Running low on fuel, the nine men onboard took their chances and parachuted out but mistakenly set upon a path northward that would sadly end in at least eight of their deaths.  

Finally in 1960, following extensive searches, the bodies of eight servicemen were found to the north of where it was believed they had parachuted out.  

One body was found near to the wreckage. Five were found 78 miles across the desert while another man was found 109 miles away. The remains of one other were never found.  

“They had lived eight days rather than only two expected of men in this area with little or no water,” the National Museum said.  

According to the book ‘The Lady Be Good’ by Ralph Barker, parts of the men’s perilous journey were recorded in a diary by the co-pilot Robert Toner as they made their way across the desert.  

The diary indicated that none of the men were aware they were flying over land when they bailed out and it was speculated, they may have believed the desert was the Mediterranean Sea.  

Incredibly the diary suggested that the men had survived for eight days with just a single canteen of water between them.  

The men on board the aircraft were named as 1st Lieutenant William Joseph Hatton, pilot; 2nd Lieutenant Robert F. Toner, copilot; 2nd Lieutenant Dp Hays, navigator; 2nd Lieutenant John S. Woravka, bombardier.  

And Technical Sergeant Harold J. Ripslinger, engineer; Technical Sergeant Robert E. LaMotte, radio operator; Staff Sergeant Guy E. Shelly, gunner; Staff Sergeant Vernon L. Moore, gunner; and Staff Sergeant Samuel E. Adams, gunner.   

‘Marge’ – P-38 Lightning fighter plane

t’s fair to say that no World War Two wreckage discovery has caused as much excitement as when America’s top Ace, Major Richard Bong’s P-38 Lightning fighter plane, “Marge,” was discovered in Papua New Guinea. 

On May 1, 2024, a search team from Pacific Wrecks set out on a journey to find one of the most famous aircraft in US history and 16 days later Justin Taylan, Steve Kleiman and Joel Caillet found the crash site hidden in the jungle and confirmed the plane’s identity as P-38J “Marge” 42-103993. 

Richard Bong had initially joined the war effort as a fighter pilot with the 9th Fighter Squadron of the 49th Fighter Group in Australia in 1942. 

According to the Air Force Historical Support Division, later that year he went on to join the 39th Squadron of the 35th Group where he destroyed five Japanese fighter planes before returning to the 9th Squadron in January 1943. 

By the end of 1943, he had continued combat missions in P-38s and increased his enemy aircraft kills to 28 and by September 1944 he had reached 40. 

Huge WWII History News

Major Dick Bong’s P-38 “Marge” (named after his wife) was just found in the Pacific!

Dick Bong is one of America’s highest scoring fighter aces with 40+ aerial victories. https://t.co/oE1QEdGRZI pic.twitter.com/UJfLXfmY6j

— CJ (@CasualArtyFan) May 24, 2024

Richard Bong’s most famous aircraft “Marge” was named after his girlfriend Marjorie Vattendahl but another pilot was at the controls when the discovered P-38 fighter went down in Papua New Guinea.  

According to Pacific Wrecks, 2nd Lt. Thomas E. Malone with P-38 pilot Lt. Rolland Forrester set out on a weather reconnaissance mission on March 24, 1944, but encountered testing conditions and turbulence. 

The two aircraft lost radio contact with each other and one of Malone’s P-38 engines failed. After entering a spin, he was forced to bail, and Marge’s fate was sealed. 

After over 200 missions for a total of more than 500 combat hours Richard Bong was ordered to return to the US in December 1944, and was later awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars, seven Distinguished Flying Crosses, 15 Air Medals and the Medal of Honor. 

Following his military service, Richard Bong became a Lockheed test pilot but on August 6, 1945, at the age of only 24, he sadly died while testing a P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter. 

Lancaster Bomber ED603

Shortly before midnight on June 12, 1943, a British Royal Air Force (RAF) Lancaster Bomber with seven servicemen onboard left RAF Wyton near St Ives, Cambridgeshire, England, and set out on a bombing raid over Germany.  

The Pathfinder Force Lancaster Bomber ED603 was tasked with target marking and were among 12 Lancasters from No. 83 Squadron in a first wave. 

According to the Dutch website Geborgen Verleden, during the raid bombs rained down on the German city Bochum resulting in hundreds of deaths and devastating damage to buildings.  

On its return to RAF Wyton, Lancaster Bomber ED603 was spotted on radar and shortly after 02:00 the aircraft was shot down by a Messerschmitt Bf-110. 

The Lancaster Bomber crew were flying over the Netherlands at time and the plane crashed into lake Ijsselmeer. 

In 2023, after a fishing boat snagged its nets on a Merlin engine and propeller belonging to ED603 an extraordinary salvage mission was launched to uncover the wreckage and lay the crew to rest. 

While the bodies of Flight Lieutenant Eric Tilbury (Pilot), Pilot Officer Harold E. Howsam (Navigator), Pilot Officer Gordon Fletcher (Bomb Aimer) and Flying Officer Gordon R. Sugar (Air Gunner) were found on the lake shore weeks after the crash, there were still three missing.  

Working alongside the Dutch Air Force, the RAF’s Joint Aircraft Recovery and Transport Squadron (JARTS) set about constructing a square dam around the downed Lancaster. 

The Cofferdam exposed the Lancaster wreckage on the lakebed allowing for the delicate recovery of aircraft parts. 

The rescue was carried out closely with relatives of the servicemen and the human remains of Pilot Officer Arthur Smart (Flight Engineer), Pilot Officer Charles Sprack (Mid-Upper Gunner), and Flight Sergeant Raymond Moore (Wireless Operator) were eventually found. 

In addition to remains of flying gear and clothing, the recovery team found two silver-plated cigarette cases. On them were the initials of Arthur Smart and Edward Moore.   

According to a statement issued by the carrier on February 24, 2025, KTSP is poised to become “the largest integrated sports and entertainment landmark in Hong Kong.” Cathay Pacific has been lined up to work in close collaboration to support KTSP in delivering ​sporting, cultural, and entertainment experiences to a global audience and the signing of the agreement “underscores Cathay’s ongoing commitment to promoting sports, arts and culture, and mega-events in its home city.”

The announcement regarding the new partnership was made by executives of both Cathay Pacific and KTSP at a ceremony at the Health and Wellness Centre, Kai Tak Sports Park, hosted by Cathay Pacific’s Chief Customer and Commercial Officer Lavinia Lau and attended by guests which included KTSP Chief Executive Officer John Sharkey.

The new venue, which will become Hong Kong’s largest arena venue to host a range of sporting, cultural, and entertainment events annually, is being constructed on the site of the old Kai Tak International Airport. The airport originally opened in 1925 and eventually closed in 1998 to be replaced by Hong Kong’s current air gateway at Chek Lap Kok (HKG). At its peak, the airport handled around 30 million passengers just using a single runway built from reclaimed land from Kowloon Bay.

Remembering Kai Tak

Before its closure in July 1998, the carrier had its entire operation, administration, maintenance, and support functions all based at the airport. Indeed, the last flight to depart the airport on the eve of its closure was a Cathay Pacific Airbus A340-300 departing on a ferry flight to the new airport located just a few miles away at Chep Lap Kok.  

Through the new strategic partnership, Cathay Pacific and KTSP will introduce the first aviation-themed immersive experience in the Greater Bay Area with the Cathay-branded West Bridge, which connects the Sung Wong Toi MTR (metro) station with Kai Tak Stadium to “engage the Hong Kong community and rekindle people’s collective memory of the airline’s journey from its roots.” The space will also include an attraction to be known as ‘World Flyer’, a space dedicated to Kai Tak Airport in the form of a scaled-down representation of its major facilities to provide a welcoming learning environment for community interaction.

In addition, Cathay will be sponsoring other projects, events, and attractions at the KTPS in the coming years. The airline will also be hosting and co-sponsoring the world-famous annual Hong Kong Rugby Sevens tournament, to become the Cathay Pacific / HSBC Hong Kong Sevens, which will take place at KTSP for the first time from March 28 to 30, 2025.

What the partners are saying

“Having been Cathay Pacific’s home for many decades, the old Kai Tak Airport holds a cherished place in not only our hearts, as it is where our journey began, but also those of everyone who grew up in Hong Kong,” said Cathay Pacific’s Lavinia Lau. “In many ways, our return to Kai Tak as the exclusive Founding Travel Partner of KTSP is a testament to Cathay’s evolution from an airline to the leading premium travel lifestyle brand we are today. ​ It also symbolizes our unwavering commitment to the continued growth and development of Hong Kong as a world-class city.”

“Through strategic collaboration with KTSP, we hope to bring together visitors from all over the world to our home by creating immersive experiences that enhance its international profile and celebrate its rich heritage. The exciting line-up of sporting and cultural mega-events at KTSP will surely boost tourism and inspire the people of Hong Kong,” Lau added.

“We are thrilled to welcome Cathay back to their original home,” commented KTSP’s John Sharkey. “Kai Tak was once the location where Hong Kong met the world and the world came to Hong Kong. We are so pleased that this partnership will help bring that symbolism to life once again as we embark on bringing world-class events for the people of Hong Kong and Cathay brings the global audience to our city as our exclusive Founding Travel Partner.”

Within seconds of starting its takeoff roll, the jet had crashed into an embankment and burst into flames. Barker survived, but with life-changing injuries, and this near-death experience led him to reassess his life and priorities. 

Here’s what you need to know about the Travis Barker plane crash, why it happened, and how Barker is doing now.

How did the Travis Barker plane crash happen?

It was just before midnight when the Learjet was preparing to take off. Boarding the Learjet along with Barker was his assistant and friend Chris Baker, and his security guard Che Still. Also on board was his best friend DJ AM, also known as Adam Goldstein. 

Operating the flight was Global Exec Aviation, a charter company based in Long Beach, California. On the flight deck that day were James Bland and Sarah Lemmon. The aircraft was a two-year-old Learjet 60 with only 108 flight hours on the aircraft.

As the jet commenced its takeoff roll, Barker recounts hearing two loud bangs that he describes as “like a gunshot”. Air traffic controllers saw sparks coming from the plane. The pilots radioed in to say they were aborting the takeoff but to send out emergency equipment as they were going off the end of the runway.

The aircraft continued to hurtle down the 8,000 ft runway, overrunning the end and crashing through the airport’s boundary fence. It crossed a five-lane highway and smashed into an embankment, bursting into flames.

Investigation after the crash found that the ‘gunshot’ sound had been caused by a bursting tire. Several ruined tires were found on the aircraft and pieces of rubber were strewn across the runway. Just bad luck? Not exactly.

The National Transportation Safety Board investigation found that several tires were severely underinflated before takeoff and, as a result, were punctured on the runway. Pieces of tire damaged the aircraft’s hydraulic system, causing the brakes to fail.

The biggest mistake was aborting the takeoff when they did. The pilots abandoned takeoff at 144 knots, beyond the V1 or ‘decision speed’ for the Learjet 60 – 136 knots. This violated operating procedures and meant the jet had no chance of stopping before the end of the runway, even if its brakes had been operational.

Compounding this was an inadvertent retraction of the thrust reversers. The reversers had been deployed in the seconds following the decision to reject the takeoff, but a safety feature that’s designed to stop reversers from deploying mid-flight kicked in and stowed them, further reducing the aircraft’s ability to slow.

How did Travis Barker survive the plane crash?

Passengers Che Still and Chris Baker died on impact. The two pilots died from smoke inhalation and burns in the minutes after the crash. Goldstein was barely conscious following the crash, but woke up to Travis screaming and trying to open a door.

Barker has said both he and Goldstein were covered in jet fuel and their clothes were on fire. They slid down the wings of the aircraft to get out, ripping off their clothes as they hit the ground until someone yelled to them to ‘stop, drop and roll.’

The two men told first responders there were four other people on board, but there was nothing they could do to save them. It took firefighters over an hour to bring the blaze under control.

Barker had burns on 65% of his body, both second- and third-degree. Goldstein suffered severe burns on his arms and scalp. Both would spend many weeks in hospital following the crash, having skin grafts and other lifesaving treatment.

Goldstein suffered severe depression and anxiety in the months that followed and died a year later from a drug overdose. A close friend of his told the New York Times, “I think the plane crash killed him… it just took a year for it to do it.”

How many surgeries did Travis Barker have after the plane crash?

Travis Barker spent more than 11 weeks in hospital and burn centers. He went through 26 surgeries, which were often complicated by his high tolerance to opioids after using them recreationally for many years. He had several blood transfusions and numerous skin grafts.

When he was talking about the accident on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, the drummer said: “When I was in the hospital, I was on so many drugs I didn’t even know my two friends had passed away. I didn’t know the pilots had passed away. I didn’t remember anything.”

Barker’s injuries were severe. Doctors thought they were going to have to amputate his foot, and at one point medical officers had to remove his phone from his room because he was calling friends and begging them to help him end his life, so severe was the pain.

How long did it take Travis Barker to recover from the plane crash?

Barker’s time in the hospital meant he missed the funerals of his friends who died in the crash. The road to recovery has been long and hard, but some good has come out of it, not least that it led him to quit abusing prescription painkillers and smoking marijuana. 

“People are always like, ‘Did you go to rehab?’” Barker said. “And I say, ‘No, I was in a plane crash.’ That was my rehab. Lose three of your friends and almost die? That was my wake-up call. If I wasn’t in a crash, I would have probably never quit.”

Barker has also had therapy for PTSD and survivors guilt, but continued to refuse to fly after the crash. Talking about it to Men’s Health, Barker said, 

In 2021, Barker boarded a plane for the first time in 13 years with his now-wife Kourtney Kardashian. The two took a private jet to Cabo, Mexico with Barker’s children. Determined to travel, he has since taken many flights, including to Portofino in Italy where he married Kourtney in 2022.

It’s still hard to fly, he says, particularly in the wake of several high-profile plane crashes over the past few months. In December, an Azerbaijan Airlines E190 crashed near Aktau, Kazakhstan, then days later, Jeju Air’s 737 crashed and exploded in South Korea. More recently, the Potomac River mid-air collision, the loss of a Bering Air Cessna 208 in Alaska and the dramatic crash of a Delta CRJ have heightened his nerves.

“It’s hard for me to get on flights,” he told Fox News in February 2025. “You tell yourself, these things never happen. These things never happen. And then, just lately, I feel like we’re seeing it almost every day.”

Nevertheless, the drummer is determined not to let the accident define him. Blink-182 reformed in the years following the crash, and Barker continues to tour with the group, having just wrapped up their ‘One More Time’ world tour in November 2024.

Lessons learned from the Travis Barker plane crash

The NTSB made several recommendations following the crash investigation, including:

• Requirements for Learjet 60 pilots to receive training on recognizing an inadvertent thrust reverser stowage
• Increased focus on tire maintenance, including improved information to pilots and maintenance personnel on the importance and consequences of underinflated tires
• Simulator training for pilots specifically on tire failure scenarios
• Requirements for pilots to have a minimum level of operating experience and flight time in new aircraft types

In this article, AeroTime examines the remarkable story of Steven Rothstein, a Chicago-based investment banker who did just that. However, with Rothstein’s use of the air pass far surpassing any levels that the airline could have predicted, both parties would end up in a legal case against each other that would take over 12 months to resolve, racking up further costs on both sides.  

Throughout this staggering story, in a course of events that simply could not be repeated in the modern age, both parties fought their case. Once you reach the end of this article, it will be up to you to decide who came out on top, and who suffered the most from American Airlines’ decision to sell the ultimate in air travel ‘golden tickets’. 

Background 

In the early 1980s, American Airlines, already established as one of the world’s largest carriers, was struggling financially. High fuel prices, an aging fleet of inefficient aircraft, and increased competition following the deregulation of the US air travel industry in 1978 led the Fort Worth, Texas-based airline to take unprecedented measures in an attempt to stave off a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the US courts.  

One of the steps taken by the airline was to offer a special air pass, branded by the company as its ‘AAirpass’ scheme. Such schemes were fairly commonplace in the US airline industry at the time, with many carriers offering either a fixed number of flights across their networks for a fixed fee, or else unlimited flights within a restricted timescale, but again for a fixed one-off initial fare.  

However, in 1981, with a financial crisis looming and a need to raise cash quickly, American Airlines elevated its AAirpass scheme to the next level. For a one-off fee of $250,000 (around $750,000 at current values), customers could purchase a special air pass that would allow for unlimited first class travel on American Airlines-operated flights for life. 

At a time long before direct online bookings would become possible, holders of the special AAirpass would simply call a dedicated telephone number for the American Airlines Platinum Executive reservations department to book flights. Importantly, no identification was needed to either book the flights or even to travel, as ID was not required to be presented upon check-in as it is nowadays. These points would become crucial in the eventual legal outcome of this story.  

Between 1981 and 1988, 66 individuals purchased these ‘golden ticket’ air passes, netting the airline a very useful $16.5 million in cash, equivalent to almost $50 million in 2025. Passholders earned frequent flier miles on every trip and even got a lifetime membership to the Admirals Club, American Airlines’ network of airport VIP lounges.  

As he spent much of his professional life traveling, the opportunity to purchase an unlimited first-class air pass on one of his preferred carriers seemed too good to pass up for 37-year-old Chicago businessman Steven Rothstein. He bought his American Airlines unlimited first class AAirpass in 1987, stumping up the $250,000 initial fee for the privilege of flying in luxury every time he stepped onto an American Airlines aircraft. Rothstein was later described by his wife Nancy as someone who “got on a plane like most people get on a bus”, and his forking out for the special air pass would turn out to be a no-brainer, despite its high initial cost.  

Having held his own first class AAirpass for two years, in 1989 Rothstein would invest another $150,000 (around $450,000 today) for a companion AAirpass, which would allow a fellow traveler to fly with him in first class on American Airlines flights. However, using his business acumen, Rothstein negotiated with the airline so that the companion AAirpass could be used on either the same flight as the one he had booked or the one immediately before or after. Again, this would become significant in terms of how the story would end.  

Using his air pass to the full 

Using his first class AAirpass, Rothstein would travel multiple times every month. Between 1987 and 2008, he took around 10,000 flights, averaging out at 476 per year – more than one flight every day – and the full cost of every flight he took was absorbed by the initial cost of the air pass.       

In an interview, Rothstein would later explain that he had only ever been given one rule by American Airlines when he bought his air pass: he could not give it to anyone else to use to book flights on the carrier. Again, this precise wording would become crucial in the litigation that would follow in later years.  

“When I bought the AAirpass, in no uncertain terms they told me that there was only one rule, which was that I couldn’t give anybody the AAirpass. And those were the days before they took identification from passengers,” he explained. When a work colleague at his investment bank offered Rothstein $5,000 per week to use the air pass, Rothstein refused, instead keeping to the rule that the airline had set out. 

With his immensely prolific use of the air pass between 1987 and 2008, Rothstein is reported to have cost American Airlines an estimated $21 million in revenue that it could have otherwise made by selling the first-class seats he booked. Every single one of Rothstein’s flight reservations was made using the dedicated American Airlines Platinum Executive reservations line, and Rothstein himself became a familiar voice at the end of the telephone to those who worked at the carrier. One particular agent, Lorraine Cross, handled many of his bookings personally. 

During the period when he held the pass, Rothstein would often visit the same destination multiple times. He was even known to take a return flight between his Chicago base and Ontario so that he could pick up a sandwich in his favorite restaurant. 

Over the course of 21 years, Rothstein took – 

• 1,000 flights to New York City
• 500 flights to San Francisco 
• 500 flights to Los Angeles 
• 500 flights to London
• 120 flights to Tokyo 
• 80 flights to Paris 
• 80 flights to Sydney
• 50 flights to Hong Kong 
• and roughly 7,000 flights to destinations across the rest of the world.

Following a chance meeting on a flight between the US and London with the charismatic Bob Crandall, the then-CEO of American Airlines, Rothstein would receive a personal letter from the airline boss thanking him for his custom and seemingly assuring him that the airline was happy for him to be using his air pass to the maximum. 

“I am delighted that you’ve enjoyed your AAirpass investment – you can count on us to keep the Company solid, and to honor the deal, far into the future.”  

An abrupt ending

Rothstein carried on with his relentless flight schedule for more than two decades, crisscrossing the globe in the biggest seats and enjoying the best inflight service that American Airlines offered on its network at the time.  

Yet, this seemingly idyllic lifestyle was not to last. On December 13, 2008, Rothstein arrived at Chicago O’Hare Airport (ORD) along with a friend for what was supposed to be just another routine trip to Europe. He and his companion were checked in as normal and headed to the gate for their flight to London. However, upon arriving at the departure gate, Rothstein was handed a typed letter on American Airlines headed paper which read:  

“I write to inform you that, effective immediately, American Airlines, Inc., is hereby exercising its right to terminate your AAirpass Agreement dated October 1, 1987.”   

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Rothstein would later say, “I went into the ticket counter. I checked in my luggage for London. I walked to the gate and just as I was walking on the plane, they handed me a letter terminating the AAirpass. Why did they let me go to the gate? Why didn’t they tell me upfront, which would have been the nice thing to do?” 

However, the fact that American Airlines had failed to be “nice” was just the start of things to come. The carrier would later launch legal proceedings against Rothstein – not for the number of flights he had taken, but for allegedly abusing the AAirpass scheme. According to American Airlines, the stockbroker had supposedly violated the terms of the AAirpass scheme by making a string of speculative bookings for non-existent passengers, and for allowing others, sometimes even strangers, to use tickets that he had booked to travel on American Airlines flights instead of him.  

Legal action follows 

Upon the withdrawal of his AAirpass, Rothstein duly sued American Airlines in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, for breach of contract and claimed damages worth $7 million. Rothstein argued that American Airlines had waived its rights to enforce the contract by acquiescing to his booking patterns and “not cracking down on his actions sooner”. He added that the carrier had breached the terms of the AAirpass agreement by withdrawing it without notice and terminating its lifelong benefits.  

However, undeterred by Rothstein’s legal action, American Airlines launched its own counterclaim against him. In its court filing, the company made an accusation of fraud against Rothstein, accusing him of booking seats for non-existent passengers under false names such as ‘Bag Rothstein‘ and ‘Steven Rothstein Jr’ so that he could ensure that the seat next to him would always be vacant for privacy or to use for extra carry-on luggage. It alleged he also had a history of approaching strangers at the gate and offering them a free upgrade to travel on his first-class companion ticket, or simply booking tickets for flights he was never planning to board.   

In the ensuing legal action and the investigations that followed, it emerged that Rothstein had either canceled or ‘no-showed’ for 84% of the reservations he had made between May 2005 to December 2008. The airline also alleged that he had used his AAirpass to make companion reservations for at least 41 flight sectors between December 2003 and April 2004 without taking ultimately them up, leaving empty seats on airplanes.  

According to another court document, American contended that out of 3,009 flight sectors booked from August 2006 to November 2008, 14 were considered fraudulent under the airline’s alleged terms. However, Rothstein argued that he had never been notified that they were considered fraudulent at the time they were made. 

Rothstein’s defense  

In his defense, Rothstein claimed that by failing to take action against him for his booking behavior, the airline had simply acquiesced to his actions and had “condoned his booking companion seats under fictitious names for years”. He also argued that every single reservation he had ever made was placed directly with a paid American Airlines employee, and that at no time had any related concerns or misgivings been raised with him.  

The investigation even interviewed those who staffed the phone reservations lines at the airline’s reservations center, including Lorraine Cross. In her deposition, Cross stated that she had not received any written directions from American Airlines regarding what was and was not deemed to be acceptable practice for making reservations for the Executive Platinum AAirpass customers. Cross claimed she did not suspect any misuse of the AAirpass in Rothstein’s name.  

During the legal proceedings, Rothstein admitted to offering up his ticket to those in need on numerous occasions throughout the 20+ years he held the unlimited flights AAirpass. However, he explained this by saying that he had simply been doing good deeds by booking tickets on behalf of people he was in a position to help. He insisted that his actions had not breached the single rule of the air pass – of not “giving it to others” – in the way he had interpreted the rule.  

Speaking to Forbes in a 2019 interview, Rothstein said, “I gave a man in Seattle a ticket to go to his father’s funeral. I also gave many people tickets to visit ill family members. I do not view that as philanthropy, I view that simply as a good deed.” 

On a sadder note, in a 2019 Guardian article Rothstein’s daughter Caroline explained the reason behind her father booking over 2,000 empty flight seats while he held his AAirpass  This, she suggested, was a way Rothstein used to cope with the trauma that resulted from the death of his teenage son Josh, who had been fatally injured in a car collision while walking down the street in 2002.  

Steven explained in court papers: “When everyone was asleep in the house, and I had nobody to talk to, and I was lonely about Josh’s death, I would telephone American Airlines reservations and speak to the agents about who knows what for an hour and then at the end, they’d ask me, oh, what reservation was I calling about to make, and I would say, ‘Oh yeah, I need to go to San Francisco next week’. I didn’t really need to go to San Francisco. I was just very confused and very lonely, and I was calling American Airlines because they were logical people for me to speak to. They knew me. I knew them. I knew their names. I knew their lives.” 

The litigation between the parties was delayed throughout 2011 and 2012 – ironically, because of Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving American Airlines, the very outcome for which the unlimited lifetime AAirpass had been launched to avoid some thirty years previously.  

Settlement 

Eventually, in late 2012, as American Airlines emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection but with the legal action with Rothstein still rumbling on and with legal costs rising, the parties came to an out-of-court settlement, although the full details were prejudiced (not allowed to be disclosed by any party) and have remained so ever since. All further action was dropped by both sides and Rothstein and American Airlines walked away from the whole saga.   

That should have been the end of the story, yet Rothstein was not the only AAirpass holder to have their ticket revoked. Another customer, Jacques E. Vroom Jr, a Dallas-based marketing executive, paid $356,000 for his unlimited AAirpass and companion pass in December 1989. Vroom traveled nearly 38 million miles on American Airlines flights until July 2008. Allegedly, he used his AAirpass to attend all his son’s college football games in Maine and built up so many frequent flier miles that he would give them away, often to AIDS sufferers so that they could visit family. It was said that he flew so frequently that many American Airlines crew members knew Vroom by name. 

However, while checking in at London-Heathrow Airport (LHR) on July 30, 2008, Vroom was handed a letter by airline staff informing him that his passes had been terminated due to fraudulent activity. The airline sued Vroom in 2011, accusing him of selling his companion seat, which amounted to a violation of the American Airlines AAirpass rules that were republished in 1994.  

However, Vroom immediately countersued the carrier, arguing that the rule went into effect after the purchase of his lifetime pass and had no legal effect, He also sued the airline for slander, by bringing his name into disrepute in the eyes of the public. At the time of writing, this litigation still appears to be ongoing, with neither claim nor counterclaim having ever been resolved.     

Conclusion  

While American Airlines thought that the unlimited first class lifetime AAirpass would be a quick-win money-making scheme to help it avoid bankruptcy (which it initially did), it clearly did not account for the likes of passengers such as Rothstein and Vroom who made full use of the program for their benefit, but ultimately to the detriment of the carrier.  

Basic mathematics shows that these two customers alone cost American Airlines more than it ever made by selling the AAirpasses to begin with. Fortunately for Rothstein and Vroom, but unfortunately for the airline, it took the carrier years to figure out that these two customers alone were costing it millions of dollars annually. 

Speaking years later to the Los Angeles Times about the AAirpass scheme, Bob Crandall, the American Airlines CEO between 1985 and 1998, explained: “We thought originally it would be something that companies would buy for their top employees. It soon became apparent that the public was smarter than we were.” 

While the first-class unlimited travel AAirpass was discontinued by American Airlines in 1994, a revamped version appeared for sale ten years later. In 2004, the carrier offered an unlimited first class AAirpass one last time, in the Neiman-Marcus (a US-based department store chain) Christmas catalog. It was priced at $3 million per individual pass, plus $2 million extra for a companion pass. None were sold. 

Like most global superstars, Presley also enjoyed traveling in style, which included taking to the skies in his own fleet of private planes. But what do we know about the legendary musician’s fleet? And more interestingly, where are these aircraft now? 

Elvis’ first jet: The ‘Lisa Marie’ Convair 880

Elvis Presley purchased his first personal plane in 1975. It was a Convair 880 that had been flying for Delta Air Lines for 15 years as a passenger jet. He paid $250,000 for it at the time, equivalent to $1.2 million today.

But it wasn’t his first choice. According to the Australian Elvis Fan Club, he had previously placed a $75k deposit on a Boeing 707, but the deal fell through. He’d planned to buy the plane from Robert Vesco, a financier accused of embezzling millions who fled to South America. With the complications that would come with continuing the purchase of that plane, the prospect of a clean, well-maintained Convair 800 seemed much more attractive.

He christened it the ‘Lisa Marie’ after his young daughter, although its official callsign was Hound Dog I.

But Elvis clearly didn’t want to fly it as it was. The plane was extensively refurbished, taking it from a passenger hauler to a flying mansion worthy of a rock star. According to the official Graceland website, on top of the purchase price, Presley paid another $800,000 to modify the jet to his very exacting standards.

This wasn’t any old renovation Presley wanted. He demanded a conference room, private bedroom, top-of-range audio-visual systems, and the highest-end finishes on everything. He is said to have been very hands-on with the refurbishment of the Lisa Marie, picking fabrics, finishes, and colors, and regularly visiting the hangar at Meacham Field in Fort Worth to check on progress.

For that, he needed to fly. And so, Elvis bought another plane.

Elvis’ second jet: The Hound Dog II

While the Convair had been purchased in April 1975, the renovations were going to take at least six months to complete. In August of that year, Elvis leased a Fairchild F-27, but only for a couple of weeks. Seeing a good opportunity, he bought an Aero Jet Commander on August 15, but it wasn’t for the purposes of flying.

Randomly, ‘the King’ had bought Colonel Tom Parker, his enigmatic manager, a Gulfstream G-1 sight unseen in July that year. Apparently, Parker was not a fan, because by September 1975, Presley had traded in both the Gulfstream and the Jet Commander for a 1960 Lockheed JetStar.

Bought for a reported $899,702.60, this was a much bigger investment in his aircraft fleet. Already fitted out as a 10-seater business jet, Presley didn’t make any major changes, although he did alter the seats to yellow, green, and blue, and re-christened it Hound Dog II.

It was re-registered N777EP and given a livery similar to the Lisa Marie, including his trademark TCB logo on the tail.

It wasn’t until October 8 that Elvis took his first flight in his new plane. His pilot, with the remarkable name Milo High, took Presley and five others on a brief one-hour joyride to test out the jet.

Over the next month, Elvis traveled fairly frequently on Hound Dog II, enjoying his freedom while he waited for the Lisa Marie’s arrival. 

After six months of work, the ‘Lisa Marie’ was ready for takeoff. Registered N880EP, she arrived in Memphis on November 10, 1975, where she would get her final touches before being put to use for touring.

What was the Lisa Marie Convair 800 like inside?

Make no mistake, Elvis went for the best of the best for the Lisa Marie. He wanted to create a ‘flying Graceland,’ and to have all the mod cons for a comfortable trip.

Whereas the Convair used to fly 96 people around for Delta, now it would seat just 28, but in far more comfort than before. As requested, the Convair now had a conference room, with a large oval glass table and leather armchairs, and two further lounge areas for guests. 

It had a well-appointed bar, a professional hair and makeup station, and two additional sleeping areas. For the King, the plane had a private bedroom complete with a queen-sized bed, a lounge chair and a TV, and naturally, it was en suite. For the bathrooms, Elvis specified 24K gold-plated sinks and taps, and the larger bathroom even had a shower.

Attention to detail was important to the King, and every part of the aircraft was meticulously crafted. Seats were finished in suede or leather, walls were panelled in beautiful hardwoods, and the carpets were thick and plush. Even the seatbelts had gold-plated buckles.

Across the jet, 52 speakers connected to a videotape system with three TV screens as well as a quadraphonic 8-track stereo system. The aircraft even had a sky-to-ground phone system – all cutting-edge technology at the time.

While sleek and modern on the inside, the Lisa Marie was less ostentatious from the exterior. The plane was painted white and featured a blue and red strap from its nose through the whole fuselage to the tail.  

The tail featured a US flag and included a special Elvis Presley logo, featuring the acronym TCB – for the well-known Elvis catchphrase ‘Taking Care of Business’. 

Elvis used the jet for tours around the US, for which he needed a crew of four – a pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer and flight attendant. On top of that, the jet consumed 1,700 gallons of fuel per hour, and 2,200 gallons were needed for takeoff. Taken all in, this gave the Convair an annual operating cost of $404,000, or $2.1 million today when adjusted for inflation.

Elvis’ last plane – the ‘lost jet’

As an investment, Elvis had also bought a 1966 Dassault Falcon in 1975, although he never flew on it himself. Having loved the Hound Dog II so much, in December 1976, he traded in the Falcon for a second JetStar. 

Built in 1962, the Lockheed JetStar L-1329 carrying tail number N440RM was the third and last jet bought by Presley for his personal use. As it was only purchased a year before his death, it was the one he flew the least. 

Nevertheless, the interior of the jet was suitably opulent for the King, with red velvet seats and thick carpeting. Having been in Elvis’ fleet for a relatively short time, it sadly gathered dust in the New Mexico desert for over 35 years following his death. 

When it was put up for auction in 2022, it was accompanied by a letter from Elvis’ wife Priscilla which gave some insight into the importance of the ‘lost jet’:

“This is a very significant piece of history as it was the only jet Elvis bought with his father. Elvis always wished to support his father’s entrepreneurial endeavors, especially after losing his mother so early. Elvis loved and respected his father very much and this jet is a piece of him and his father’s heart.”

What happened to Elvis’ planes?

All three of Elvis’ personal jets are still around today, although one is not quite the plane it used to be.

After Presley’s death in 1977, the Lisa Marie was sold by his father, Vernon. It changed hands a couple of times, but when Graceland opened to the public in 1982, Elvis Presley Enterprises (EPE), the managers of the attraction, sought to bring the plane back to Memphis. 

In 1984, the Convair 880 duly arrived back in Graceland, where it is now on permanent display. It has gone on to become one of the most visited tourist attractions in the US.

Not long after, EPE also acquired the Hound Dog II Lockheed JetStar and put that on display at Graceland too. Both planes can still be visited today.

As for the third JetStar, it was never added to the Graceland collection, and became known as the ‘lost plane’. Having stood in the desert for decades, it was finally bought at auction in 2022 for $234,000. The buyer? A rather eccentric YouTuber called James Webb, who runs the ‘Jimmy’s World’ YouTube channel.

Jimmy had aspirations to restore the jet to flying condition, as he has done with many other vintage planes. But when it became clear this bird was never going to fly again, he decided to do something different with it.

After months of extensive work, Jimmy finished turning the JetStar into a road-going RV. Last year, it made a guest appearance at renowned US airshow Oshkosh – perhaps we’ll see some more of it in 2025.

The DEFCON system was created by the US Armed Forces in the 1950s, during the Cold War. The system was designed to provide a clear and concise way of communicating the current level of military readiness to military personnel and government officials. 

The DEFCON system consists of five escalating levels of military readiness, with each level denoting a higher degree of preparedness. The DEFCON system’s lowest threat level is DEFCON 5, while DEFCON 1 represents the highest threat level: readiness for war. 

The US has never reached DEFCON 1. The highest it has ever been is thought to be a DEFCON 2 status, which occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

What DEFCON level are we at?

In February 2022, a senior official from the US Department of Defense affirmed that the federal government would not publicly disclose the current DEFCON level, adding, “We are confident in our ability to defend the homeland and our allies and partners.”

However, Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) runs a Global Threat Monitor and estimates that since February 28, 2022, it has been at DEFCON level 3. This is due to the war in Ukraine and Russian President Putin’s threat of nuclear attack.

Different levels of DEFCON explained 

DEFCON 5 

This is the lowest state of readiness, which means that the US is at peace, and there is no immediate threat to national security. This is the default state of readiness for the military.  

Also known as ‘blue alert’ or ‘normal readiness,’ it indicates there is no immediate need to be on a high state of alert. 

The US Department of Defense has specific terminology to designate how its military exercises relate to DEFCON level situations.

The DEFCON 5 exercise term is ‘Fade Out.’ 

DEFCON 4 

This level indicates an increased risk of a military conflict or terrorist attack. At DEFCON 4, the military is on heightened alert, and they may increase surveillance and intelligence-gathering activities. 

The military may also begin pre-positioning troops and equipment to be better prepared to respond to any potential threats. 

The DEFCON 4 exercise term is ‘Double Take.’ 

DEFCON 3 

DEFCON 3 indicates there is a significant risk of an imminent attack. The military will further increase its surveillance and intelligence-gathering activities and will be ready for an attack. At DEFCON 3, the Air Force can be prepared in 15 minutes. 

The US military has been at DEFCON 3 during times of heightened tension, including Operation Paul Bunyan, the September 11 attacks, and the Yom Kippur War. 

It’s important to mention that DEFCON 3 does not indicate an actual state of war. Rather, it signifies heightened readiness whereby vacations are canceled, troops are called back to their units, and arrangements are made for deployment if required.  

The DEFCON 3 exercise term is ‘Round House.’ 

DEFCON 2

This level represents an extremely high level of military readiness, with nuclear war or other threats considered to be inevitable. The military is prepared for an imminent attack and may take action to defend against the threat. 

This may involve deploying troops and equipment to defensive positions and increasing security measures at key installations. At DEFCON 2, the army can be ready in less than six hours.

The DEFCON level was raised to 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Persian Gulf War, reflecting the high state of alert and readiness of the US military at that time. 

The DEFCON 2 exercise term is ‘Fast Pace.’ 

DEFCON 1 

This is the highest level of readiness, which means that the United States is under attack or is in the midst of a large-scale military conflict. 

At DEFCON 1, the military is fully mobilized and prepared for combat operations. This may involve the deployment of nuclear weapons, and the military will take all necessary steps to defend against the threat. 

It has never been publicly announced or confirmed that the US has been at DEFCON 1. As far as anyone knows, the level has never been raised to this severity.

The DEFCON 1 exercise term is ‘Cocked Pistol.’

When has the DEFCON level been raised?

Although the DEFCON level and its past have been kept secret, OSINT lists a few notable occasions when it was raised. 

It’s important to note that the DEFCON system is flexible and can be adjusted as needed to reflect the current threat environment. For example, the military may move from DEFCON 4 to DEFCON 3 in response to a specific threat and then return to DEFCON 4 once the threat has passed. 

Additionally, the specific actions taken at each DEFCON level may vary depending on the situation. For example, in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US Armed Forces were directed to DEFCON 3. Later, on October 24, Strategic Air Command received orders to raise its readiness level to DEFCON 2, while the other branches of the US Armed Forces maintained DEFCON 3.

The military will assess the threat environment and take appropriate action to defend against the threat. Ultimately, the purpose of the DEFCON system is to ensure that the military is prepared to respond to any potential threat to national security. 

Laws and regulations of the DEFCON system

While no specific laws or regulations dictate the use of the DEFCON system, the President of the United States has the authority to change the DEFCON level as necessary in response to a threat. The DEFCON system is often used in conjunction with other emergency protocols, such as the Continuity of Government (COG) plan, which outlines procedures for maintaining the US government’s operations during a national emergency. 

In some cases, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the public was made aware of the increase in the DEFCON level due to the seriousness of the situation. However, in other instances, such as during the Gulf War, the change in the DEFCON level was not widely publicized. 

In general, the public may not be directly informed of changes in the DEFCON level unless there is a specific need for them to take action or to be informed of a potential threat. However, in the event of a significant national security threat, the government may choose to make an announcement to the public about the increase in the DEFCON level and what actions are being taken to respond to the threat.

In 1957, the Lockheed ‘Super Star’ (as the type became known within the company) joined the Lufthansa fleet, offering the Senator class as the most exclusive mode of travel for the first time. The main focus of the service was the connection between Germany and New York, which could be flown non-stop across the Atlantic for the first time, making the aircraft a technical pioneer. With its four piston engines, the Super Stars began a new era of transatlantic air travel. These flights, which could last up to 17 hours, took off from Hamburg, where the airline’s maintenance base was also located. 

The roll-out of the newly renovated Super Star therefore took place at a location of equal importance to Lufthansa and Lufthansa Technik.

Lufthansa Super Star GmbH (LSSG) was established as a subsidiary company of the Lufthansa Group in 2015 with the aim of restoring the aircraft, originally a Trans World Airlines 1957-vintage machine) to airworthy condition. Work on the aircraft originally began where the aircraft was stored at that point in Auburn, Maine. However, in 2018, after investing over 150 million euros into the project, along with over ten years of labor, the plans to return the Lockheed Super Star to the air were discontinued due to a lack of funds and soaring costs.

However, unwilling to confine the aircraft to the scrapper, LSSG vowed to continue its good work in restoring the airplane to a high static-only condition. In 2019, the aircraft was shipped to Bremen in Germany, where it was stored until February 2021 when it was transported to Paderborn. Then, in October 2023, it was relocated once more in sections to Lufthansa Technik’s base in Hamburg for full re-assembly and for its preservation efforts to be completed.

The re-assembly process in the hangar in Hamburg was always destined to be a painstaking and lengthy process. The larger of the aircraft components, including the fuselage sections, wings, and the type’s iconic triple tail structure arrived at Lufthansa Technik in October 2023 accompanied by 292 crates of smaller parts. Since then, a team of dedicated engineers has slowly pieced the aircraft back together, not sparing any detail in their work.

The restoration includes fully functioning lighting and flight controls, with steel cables connecting to fully movable rudders and flaps. Additionally, the cockpit has been meticulously recreated to appear as it did when the aircraft was first delivered in 1957. While the passenger cabin retains much of its 1950s bygone-era charm, some more modern conveniences have been added to give the airplane an updated feel.

The original passenger seats, for example, have been replaced with fully restored seats acquired from a retired Lufthansa A340. The seats have been extensively redesigned and upholstered in wine-red leather, while the cabin’s curtains and carpets have been replaced with vintage print fabrics, maintaining the aesthetic look of the era.

With its lengthy process of renovation largely completed, the aircraft was rolled out of Lufthansa Technik’s hangar in Hamburg on Friday, January 17, 2025, welcomed by hundreds of wellwishers, supporters of the campaign to renovate her, and Lufthansa Technik employees.

What’s next for the Super Star?

Now that it has been rolled out, the aircraft will be dismantled once again into larger segments in the coming weeks before being transported to Münster/Osnabrück Airport (FMO) in July 2025. There, and once it has been fully repainted from its current primer green into vintage 1950s-era Lufthansa colors, the Lockheed Super Star is scheduled to be transported onwards to arrive in Frankfurt in October 2025.

Together with the legendary Lufthansa Junkers Ju 52 D-AQUI, ‘Super Star’ will be the main attraction of a new Lufthansa Group conference and visitors center opening in spring 2026. The opening will come just in time for the 100th anniversary of Lufthansa’s founding in 1925. The Lufthansa Technik statement adds, “Thanks to a glass façade, the exhibits will also be clearly visible from the outside.”

On paper, the fastest fighter jet of 2025 is the Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-25, which sets a pace of Mach 2.83. It is followed by its sistership, the MiG-31. But both these types are almost obsolete, with just a quartet of MiG-25s recorded as being in service. 

In terms of widely-used, theater-ready fighter jets, the F-15 Eagle takes the crown. Over 900 are in service, and the type is still being modernized, with its latest iteration, the F-15EX, designed to fly even faster.

The top 10 fastest fighter jets ranked

How the top speed of fighter jets is measured

When considering the speed of an aircraft, the maximum speed is not always reflective of how it would perform in real-world situations. The speeds reported in this list have been achieved with test aircraft in clean configurations (carrying no weapons or external fuel tanks). These tests show what the aircraft is capable of. However, in their day-to-day operations, the jets tend to fly significantly slower. 

The top speeds are also usually measured at an optimal altitude, typically above 30,000 ft (9,000 m), and many of the aircraft mentioned are much slower when flying at lower altitudes.  

We count down the world’s fastest fighter jets and give more detail on each.

10. McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II 

Mach 2.23 (2,370 kph / 1,470 mph / 1,280 kts at 40,000 ft / 12,000 m) 

The F-4 Phantom is one of the most famous Cold War jets. While it has been retired by most of its operators, the air forces of Turkey, Greece, and Iran still fly the aircraft, according to the 2025 World Air Forces directory. South Korea retired the last of its F-4E Phantoms in 2024.

Notable for its un-aerodynamic shape, the F-4 can reach high speeds thanks to the raw power of General Electric J79 engines, invoking a saying popular among Phantom pilots and fans alike – “A brick can fly if you stick a big enough engine on it.” 

Famously, the F-4 was designed without an internal gun, as intelligence at the time decreed that close combat dogfights were over and that the aircraft’s primary role would be as a fleet defense fighter. Air-to-air guided missiles were thought to have made guns obsolete, as the Phantom could shoot down bombers from beyond visual range and use heat-seeking sidewinder missiles closer in.

However, as air-to-air combat evolved and the importance of dogfighting became clear, the F-4 was modified to include an external gun pod. Guns could be fitted to any of its hardpoints, meaning – theoretically – it could carry up to five, although none ever did.

9. Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 

Mach 2.25 (2,414 kph / 1,500 mph / 1,303 kts at 40,000 ft / 12,000 m) 

The F-22 Raptor is the first 5th generation fighter and the only stealth aircraft to be included on this list. Fewer than 200 Raptors have ever been made, and the type has never been exported. The US Air Force (USAF) remains its only operator. 

Despite being very fast at high altitudes, many of the older jets on this list can barely break the sound barrier while flying low. But the F-22 is different: it can fly faster than Mach 1.2 at sea level and reach high speeds even with full armament, which does not cause additional drag due to being stored in internal weapons bays. 

The Raptor also boasts the ability to supercruise, reaching more than Mach 1.8 without using afterburners. Supercruise leads to greater fuel economy and longer ranges, as afterburners are very fuel-hungry. 

8. IAI Kfir 

Mach 2.3 (2,440 kph / 1,520 mph / 1,320 kts at 36,000 ft / 11,000 m) 

The Kfir is an Israeli upgrade to the Dassault Mirage 5 and is currently operated only by Colombia and the tactical flight training arm of Textron, Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (ATAC).  

Its numerous upgrades include the General Electric J79-J1E turbojet engine, which is considerably more powerful than the Mirage 5’s original SNECMA Atar 9C.  

There are some conflicting reports that indicate that the Kfir’s top speed is a more modest Mach 2. Furthermore, since the existing Kfir airframes are quite old, there is a chance that the aircraft can no longer achieve these speeds. 

However, much of the available information indicates that the Kfir’s top speed is Mach 2.3. It also suggests that the model has likely reached this speed in the past, which is why AeroTime has included the aircraft in its ranking. 

7. Mikoyan MiG-29 

Mach 2.3 (2,450 kph / 1,520 mph / 1,320 kts at 36,000 ft / 11,000 m) 

Designed in the Soviet Union as a lighter counterpart to the Sukhoi Su-27 and a response to the F-16, the MiG-29 has been widely exported and is currently in the inventory of Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, Poland, India, and many other countries. 

Despite often being described as a rival to the F-16, the MiG-29 mainly performed the role of point-defense interceptor and, as such, had a relatively small range and high speed. 

The aircraft has some limitations; for example, it can’t go supersonic while carrying a fuel tank. Nevertheless, a clean MiG-29 is said to be capable of reaching Mach 1.2 at sea level.

Nicknamed ‘Fulcrum,’ the MiG-29 is known for its incredible maneuverability, delivered in part thanks to its widely spaced engines. It’s the fifth most widely used fighter jet in service, with 788 active examples identified in the 2025 World Air Forces directory.

6. Grumman F-14 Tomcat 

Mach 2.3 (2,485 kph / 1,544 mph / 1,342 kts at 40,000 ft / 12,000 m) 

The F-14 is considered to be the world’s first 4th generation fighter jet, designed primarily as a fighter for the US Navy. Retired by the Navy in favor of the F/A-18, the F-14 is currently operated by only the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, which has 41 in service, according to the 2025 World Air Forces directory.

Known as the ‘Tomcat,’ the F-14 is a carrier-capable twin-engine supersonic fighter jet with a variable-sweep wing design. It first deployed with the US Navy in 1974 aboard the USS Enterprise as a replacement for the F-4 Phantom II and was retired by the US Navy on September 22, 2006.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran claimed its F-14s shot down at least 160 Iraqi aircraft while only 16 Tomcats were lost (seven of those in accidents). Although Iran maintains a fleet of 41, it’s likely many of these are not combat-ready due to sanctions creating a lack of spare parts.

In active duty, Tomcat pilots report regularly reaching the advertised speed of Mach 2.3, even fully loaded. It is suggested that a clean F-14 could reach even higher speeds, and pilots loved pushing it to the limit. Dave Andersen, a former F-14 Tomcat Radar Intercept Officer for the US Navy, wrote on Quora:

“That jet accelerated like it was blasted out of a cannon. In maybe 50 seconds we went from about 400 knots and reached the advertised top speed of Mach 2.34, and the jet was still accelerating. I’m sure she would’ve gone past 2.5 Mach if we’d let her, but backed off at that point because we were getting close to “bingo” fuel state.”

5. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 

Mach 2.35 (2,499 kph / 1,1553 mph / 1,349 kts at 36,000 ft / 11,000 m) 

Another swing-wing fighter, the MiG-23 was designed in the early 1960s and is still operated by North Korea, Syria, Kazakhstan, Libya and several African nations. According to the  2025 World Air Forces directory, 187 remain in service around the world.

Built as an interceptor, the MiG-23 is far less maneuverable than newer 4th generation jets and has relatively poor low-altitude performance. Nevertheless, it was an extremely sophisticated jet for the late 60s and remains one of the most iconic Soviet aircraft of the Cold War.

Known as the ‘Flogger,’ the MiG-23’s variable wing sweep makes it capable of taking off from short, remote runways, as well as optimizing its aerodynamic profile for supersonic or cruise flight. Its advanced radar and fire control systems allow it to target enemies well beyond visual range. 

4. Sukhoi Su-27 

Mach 2.35 (2,500 kph / 1,600 mph / 1,300 kts at 36,000 ft / 11,000 m) 

The Su-27 was one of the most prolific late-Cold War jets, giving rise to an entire family of aircraft that includes the Su-30, the Su-34, the Su-35, the J-11, and the J-16, among others.  

It is one of the most widely operated aircraft in the world. A number of models, derived from the Su-27, have often been described as having top speeds between Mach 2 and Mach 2.35, although the most recent variants are unlikely to be as fast. Check out the section at the end of this list to find out why. 

Unlike some other 4th generation jets, the Su-27 can’t reach Mach 1.2 at sea level, and with external ordinance, its top speed is also significantly lower. However, it was not intended to work as a dedicated interceptor, and high speeds at a high altitude are more of a byproduct of this aircraft’s powerful engines, designed to give it high payload capacity and acceleration.

As a family, the Su-27/30/34/35 family is the second most prominent in-service fighter jet type in the world for 2025, second only to the F-16. The 2025 World Air Forces directory lists 1,284 as in service, with major operators including China, India, and Russia.

3. McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 

Mach 2.5 (2,655 kph / 1,650 mph / 1,434 kts at 40,000 ft / 12,000 m) 

Probably one of the most well-known US-made aircraft, the F-15 is operated by the USAF, Israel, Japan, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. It’s the third most widely-used fighter jet in the world, with the 2025 World Air Forces directory listing 919 in service.

The jet was developed as a response to the MiG-25 interceptor (which makes an appearance later in this list). While the Eagle is slightly slower than the aircraft it was designed to rival, the US jet makes up for this by also having tremendous low-speed maneuverability. 

It is also the only fighter jet to ever shoot down a space satellite, and the only one to experience no air-to-air losses while scoring over 100 aerial victories.  

Despite the base model being more than 50 years old, the F-15 is still in production as the vastly upgraded F-15EX, also known as the F-15 Eagle II. 

2. Mikoyan MiG-31 

Mach 2.83 (3,000 kph / 1,900 mph / 1,600 kts at 70,538 ft / 21,500 m) 

The MiG-31 was based on the legendary MiG-25 and was also intended to replace it. The performance of the two aircraft is similar, except for the fact that the MiG-31 has superior sensors, electronics, and armament. 

The MiG-31 was retired by Kazakhstan in 2024, leaving only Russia operating the type. The Russian Air Force has 128 active examples in service, according to the 2025 World Air Forces directory.

The MiG-31 was initially designed to be more adaptable than the MiG-25. It offered several variants, including a multirole fighter, a bomber, and a reconnaissance aircraft. These variants were later scrapped but plans to produce them still resulted in the MiG-31 having decent low-level performance. The aircraft can reach Mach 1.25 at sea level, something earlier interceptors were incapable of doing.  

However, despite many modernizations, the aircraft does have problems that severely limit its speed. During parliamentary hearings in 2013, Victor Bondarev, head of the Russian Aerospace Forces, explained that the MiG-31’s new cockpit glass, which provides better visibility, has also limited the aircraft’s speed to Mach 1.5. 

“Those 2.83 Mach that this plane produced are limited; it no longer flies at 2.83 Mach, it flies at only 1.5 Mach, for one simple reason – the glass can’t handle it. It turns out that we can’t produce glass in Russia.” 

But the jet does not need to rely on speed alone due to its vastly expanded modern armament, which includes the Kinzhal hypersonic missile.  

1. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 

Mach 2.83 (3,000 kph / 1,900 mph / 1,600 kts at 70,538 ft / 21,500 m) 

Designed in the late 1960s, the MiG-25 – codename ‘Foxbat’ – was arguably the most feared fighter jet of the Cold War, and is responsible for the US scrambling to develop the F-15. However, whether the MiG-25 can be considered operational is debatable.  

Retired in almost all countries that had it, the MiG-25 officially remains in the arsenal of just two countries. According to the 2025 World Air Forces directory, just four remain active – two in Syria and two in Libya. It’s unlikely any of these four jets are combat-ready.

However, at least theoretically, the MiG-25 remains the world’s fastest fighter jet. It broke numerous records and reached speeds achieved by no other airbreathing jet except for the SR-71 and its derivatives. 

The MiG-25 was designed first and foremost as a high-altitude interceptor. Just like many other aircraft of this type, it had poor maneuverability and could not break the sound barrier at sea level while carrying missiles. 

The fastest-deployed fighter jet

The MiG-25 can, in practical terms, be considered retired. The MiG-31, only used in Russia, has its speed hobbled by the cockpit glass. As such, when considering deployed aircraft in active service, the F-15 is the fastest fighter jet.

Its latest variant, the F-15EX, is even faster. In early 2024, Aviation Week quoted Boeing’s Rob Novotny, a former Air Force F-15 test pilot and now the executive director of F-15 Business Development as saying a clean F-15EX would be able to fly at Mach 2.9. However, this is a theoretical maximum and has not been publicly demonstrated in any tests.

According to The War Zone, a Boeing spokesperson clarified that the fastest the F-15EX had flown in tests, with clean configuration, was Mach 2.497. With twin General Electric F110-GE-129 engines developing 29,500 pounds of thrust each in full afterburner, the airframe and powerplants are more than capable of Mach 2.5 plus; however, the paintwork and antennas probably wouldn’t survive, and the fuel would reach bingo in seconds.

Nevertheless, the continual upgrading of the F-15 has seen this fifty-year-old airframe go from strength to strength, keeping it highly relevant even today.

Why aren’t fighter jets being designed to fly faster?

You may have noticed that most jets on this list are rather old. Meanwhile, the latest generation, except for the F-22, is rarely reported as capable of reaching even Mach 2. 

Fast speeds have long stopped being a subject of bragging rights for aircraft manufacturers, and the newest aircraft are indeed, on average, significantly slower than their predecessors. This is because speed stopped being as important in air combat and was sacrificed in favor of maneuverability, stealth, and fuel efficiency, among other factors.

Studies have shown that fighters rarely reach speeds of more than Mach 1.2 during real air combat. Higher speeds are only important for long-range interceptions, a role that the top aircraft on this list, the F-15 and the MiG-31, are designed to fulfill.

New medium- and long-range missiles further the speed advantage. As a result, Cold War-era interceptors remain the fastest jets ever designed, and the latest aircraft are, in comparison, very slow. Even the forthcoming sixth-generation fighters are projected to have maximum speeds of Mach 2.2 – 2.5. They really “don’t make them like they used to.”

Honorary mentions: Mach 2.05-2.2 fighters 

While some of the most popular aircraft can reach speeds slightly higher than Mach 2, this is not enough to make the cut for our list. These aircraft include: 

• General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon 
• Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-21 
• Dassault Mirage 2000 
• Dassault Mirage F1 

Honorary mentions: Mach 2 fighters 

A lot of the jets currently in service have a top speed of Mach 2 (between 2,100-2,200 kph / 1,300-1,360 mph / 1,100-1,150 knots). These include: 

• Saab JAS 39 Gripen 
• Eurofighter Typhoon 
• Chengdu J-20 
• Sukhoi Su-57  

The article, written by Irwin Fisher in the Weekly World News, alleged that a Lockheed L-1409 Super Constellation, missing since 1954, had reappeared on October 12th, 1989, and landed in Brazil. Unbelievably, the article claimed that the skeletons of all 88 passengers and four crewmembers were still on board.

Fisher even quoted a ‘paranormal researcher’, Dr Celso Atello, who speculated that the aircraft had perhaps passed through a time warp. He went on to say that the airplane had “defied the laws of space and time,” concluding: “God only knows how a skeleton managed to land it.”

As much as the world loves a good mystery, this story was, of course, a work of fiction. As fact-checking site Snopes points out, “The discovery of wormholes probably won’t be made by tabloid journalists.”

Nevertheless, the story continues to capture the imagination, reappearing occasionally on social media. Even today, some maintain the incident did indeed happen and is simply being covered up. Once we scratch the surface, though, the level of fabrication becomes blatantly clear.

The story of Santiago Flight 513

The Weekly World News report states that the Lockheed Super Constellation left Aachen, Germany, on September 4, 1954, bound for Porto Alegre, Brazil. Operated by Santiago Airlines, it had 88 passengers and four crew members on board.

En route, while the aircraft was over the Atlantic Ocean, all contact was lost and the flight never landed at its destination. At the time, authorities assumed it must have crashed into the sea, although no wreckage was ever discovered.

Thirty-five years later, on October 12, 1989, the plane supposedly reappeared, circling overhead at Porto Alegre Airport. According to the story, it landed perfectly, surprising air traffic controllers, not least because the Constellation hadn’t flown a commercial service in the US since 1967 and was on the verge of being banned in the country due to FAA safety concerns.

The story claims that, on arriving at the aircraft, investigators found all four turboprop engines still humming away. Even more bizarrely, it says the cabin was filled with the skeletons of the 88 passengers strapped into their seats, alongside four crew members, including the captain, who was ‘still clutching the controls.’

Why Santiago Flight 513 has to be a hoax

Even putting aside the outlandish time travel/wormhole theory, this story has some major plot holes:

• The airport was not suitable for the Super Constellation to take off from
• The aircraft in question didn’t have the range for the route
• There are no official reports of equivalent missing airliners from 1954
• There are no official reports of lost airliners ‘appearing’ in 1989

The only commercial airport that could be described as ‘Aachen’ is Maastricht Aachen Airport (MST), not only in a different city but also in another country, being over the border in the Netherlands. 

Aachen does have an airfield – at the time of 1954, though, it was merely a grass strip. The Lockheed Constellation could take off from grass, and did so once or twice, but only under specific circumstances such as a lighter load and longer runway. The Super, stretched by eight feet, would have struggled to leave with 92 souls on board.

The route from Aachen Airfield to Porto Allegre is just short of 6,600 miles. Ultimate Specs defines the typical range of a Super Constellation at 5,150 miles, so it couldn’t have made the trip without a stop (paranormal or otherwise).

Airliners do indeed go missing from time to time, from Amelia Earhart vanishing in her Lockheed Electra in 1937 to the infamous Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. Certainly, back in the 1950s, it wasn’t unheard of for aircraft to vanish on long transoceanic trips, lost to the vast seas. But did Santiago Airlines Flight 513 disappear at all? Indeed, did it even exist?

In fact, there is no record of a company by the name of Santiago Airlines ever existing, and there are no news reports of its disappearance. No other outlets covered the mysterious reappearance, and there were no official investigations. The whole story, from start to finish, is revealed as a work of fiction.

Weekly World News: A track record of hoaxes

The Santiago Airlines story was not the first time Weekly World News had made something up. Four years previously, a journalist called Derek Clontz wrote a strangely similar story about a missing flight, though this time he didn’t fabricate the airline’s name.

Pan Am Flight 914 was (allegedly) a Douglas DC-4 that took off from New York en route to Miami in 1955. It never made it and was lost until it materialized over the skies of Caracas, Venezuela, thirty years later. Having made a textbook landing, the pilot panicked and took off again, conveniently making it impossible to interview any occupants. The story, of course, was completely false.

The list of fabricated stories to have graced the pages of Weekly World News is not a short one. Dubbed the ‘most creative newspaper in American history’ by the Washington Post, some of its more infamous headlines included:

• 12 US SENATORS ARE SPACE ALIENS
• DEAD ROCK STARS RETURN ON GHOST PLANE
• BAT CHILD FOUND IN CAVE

Weekly World News never denied fabricating many of its stories, but it did so in a way that made them sound almost plausible. It’s a testament to the strange publication that, to this day, many of its stories continue to resurface and get people asking, “Did this really happen?”

In the case of Santiago Airlines Flight 513, however, the answer is a clear, definite ‘no’.

On that day, as they boarded a rickety 30-year-old Convair 240 in Greenville, South Carolina, the band and their entourage had already agreed to invest in an upgrade – a Learjet – for the next trip. Drummer Artimus Pyle is quoted by Rolling Stone as saying, “We were flying in a plane that looked like it belonged to the [Beverly Hillbillies] Clampett family.”

The flight departed Greenville Downtown Airport for Baton Rouge, Louisiana, shortly after 4pm. By 7pm that evening, two crew members and four of the passengers would be dead, including lead vocalist Ronnie Van Zant and sibling band members Steve and Cassie Gaines.

The tragedy shook the rock and roll world and brought the band’s career to an abrupt halt (until a controversial revival a decade later). So, why did Lynyrd Skynyrd’s plane crash, and who was to blame?

The Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash: how it happened

Lynyrd Skynyrd’s management had chartered an aircraft from L & J Company, located in Addison, Texas, to fly them on the tour. The Convair 240, registered N55VM and built in 1947, was a bargain basement executive rental. Rumor has it that Aerosmith recently inspected the very same plane for their Draw The Line tour, only to reject it as not up to standard.

The aircraft arrived in Greenville on October 18, 1977. It was refueled with 400 gallons of 100-octane low-lead fuel, and was readied for departure on the afternoon of October 20, 1977. 

The fateful flight took off at 16:02 CT for a roughly three-hour jaunt to Baton Rouge. Onboard were two crewmembers and 24 passengers, including Lynyrd Skynyrd band members Ronnie Van Zant, Steve Gaines, Allen Collins, Leon Wilkeson, Billy Powell and Gary Rossington. 

As they approached their destination, the pilots realized there was a problem. The Air Accident Report states that, at 18:42, N55VM advised Houston Center: “We need to get to an airport, the closest airport you’ve got, sir.”

Advising they were out of fuel, the crew received headings to McComb-Pike County Airport (MCB). At 18:45, N55VM advised Houston they were completely out of fuel. Houston requested the aircraft’s altitude, to which the response was, “We’re at four-point-five.”

That was the last recorded communication from N55VM. Around 10 minutes later, another aircraft reported picking up a weak transmission from an emergency locator. The US Coast Guard Station at New Orleans responded, and their helicopter located the crash site at 19:36.

The Convair had crashed in a heavily wooded area near the town of Gillsburg, MS. It had been gliding until it hit the trees, some of which stood 80 meters tall. The impact pitched the plane into a steeper angle and it crashed through the trees, tearing off the outboard section of the wings and the left horizontal stabilizer. 

The wreckage path was almost 500 feet long, and the cockpit was crushed against tree trunks. Six people lost their lives in the crash:

• Ronnie Van Zant: lead vocalist and primary lyricist
• Steve Gaines: guitarist and backing vocalist
• Cassie Gaines: backing vocalist
• Dean Kilpatrick: assistant road manager
• Walter McCreary: captain
• William John Gray: first officer

Miraculously, a further 20 people survived the devastating crash, though 19 were seriously injured, many with severe lacerations and fractures. One passenger – drummer Artemis Pyle – walked away with only minor cuts and bruises (although he was subsequently threatened at gunpoint after stumbling into a farmer’s field).

How did Lynyrd Skynyrd’s plane run out of fuel?

Following the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) launched an investigation to determine the cause of the accident. The investigation concluded that the aircraft experienced fuel exhaustion, leading to complete engine failure.

The NTSB stated that, according to the fuel receipts, the aircraft should have had more than enough fuel on board for the trip and estimated that there should still have been 207 gallons in the tanks at the time of the crash. The report discussed three scenarios that could explain the depletion of fuel:

1. A fuel leak: The Safety Board dismissed this as a viable explanation as the investigators saw no evidence of damaged lines or loose caps.
2. A discrepancy in fueling: The aircraft may have received less fuel in Greenville than documented, but this was considered unlikely as fuel meters on trucks cannot be reset.
3. A problem with the engines: The NTSB found that the right engine was operating in the ‘auto-rich’ setting, meaning it could have consumed more fuel than expected.

The report states that, in ‘auto-rich’ mode, the Convair’s engines would have burned around 25 gallons an hour more than if set to ‘auto-lean.’ Witnesses on the aircraft reported seeing ‘torching,’ whereby unburnt fuel flames out from the engine, and one claimed to have asked the captain about it, to which they were told it was running rich due to an engine problem.

Of course, it’s impossible to say for how long the engine was running with this setting, but the NTSB says that it would have needed 583 gallons for the whole 2.8-hour flight. That’s significantly more than the 502 gallons they estimated to be onboard after refueling.

Aside from the depleted fuel issue, the NTSB concluded that the crew were negligent in their monitoring of the aircraft. The Board states that “had they properly monitored their fuel supply and noted excessive fuel consumption early in the flight, they could have planned an alternate refueling stop.”

The fuel gauges were subsequently sent for testing at the NTSB labs in Washington D.C., but the instruments were too badly damaged to determine whether they had been functional. 

How did 20 people walk away from the Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash?

Oddly, there was a silver lining to the fact that the plane had run out of gas. With no fuel to ignite when the wings detached, the devastating fire that normally engulfs a crash site did not happen.

Drummer Pyle claims that he realized something was wrong before the crash and went into the cockpit. There, Captain McCreary reportedly told him to get everyone in the brace position and strapped in. This, it is thought, saved many lives that day.

Although the front of the aircraft was destroyed, the mid-section remained remarkably intact, allowing 20 people to be rescued. 

The NTSB praised the efforts of the six medical doctors and 20 corpsmen and emergency medical technicians who diagnosed, treated, and stabilized crash victims during the evacuation.

Overall, the NTSB didn’t feel any need to implement any safety recommendations as a result of the crash, as they determined the fault to lie with a distracted flight crew and a plane that was flown with a known fault. Nevertheless, the board did issue an advisory circular relating to the leasing of planes, recommending due diligence before stepping on board.

The jets that made our world smaller decades ago are becoming rare birds today. From big behemoths like the Boeing 747 to the tiny Airbus A318 ‘baby bus,’ some historic industry stalwarts are becoming the rarest planes today.

Across all categories, these are the rarest passenger jets still in service today. Note that this only considers aircraft in scheduled airline service, not charter, private, or cargo operators.

Note: Data sourced from ch-aviation.com, Planerspotters.net, and Airfleets.net, and is correct at the date of writing (October 29, 2024). All figures remain subject to change.

Let’s take a look at these aircraft types in more detail to see who flies them and where.

The rarest regional jets still in scheduled service

Dornier Do-328JET

Dornier had introduced the turboprop Do-328 in 1993, but had been receiving negative feedback on the appeal of the turboprop against turbofan alternatives. Re-engining the aircraft seemed to be a pretty straightforward solution, and the company began working on the 328-300, a jet-powered version of its regional aircraft.

Amid financial struggles, Dornier was acquired by US aerospace firm Fairchild, the resulting corporation being named Fairchild Dornier. The new entity continued work on the jet, renaming it the 328JET, and it took its maiden flight in January 1998.

French regional operator Proteus Airlines was the launch customer, and put its first 328JET into service in 1999. In all, 110 units of the jet were built between 1996 and 2002, but just four remain in commercial service today.

All four of those are with British Airways, but you won’t see them flying in and out of London Heathrow. Rather, they are operated by Danish regional carrier Sun Air of Scandinavia on routes from Billund (BLL) to Manchester and London City under a franchise agreement that has existed for over a quarter of a century.

But, the Do-328 is not done yet. Deutsche Aircraft is developing a new, environmentally friendly version of the aircraft known as the D328eco. Similarly, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works has used the Do-328JET as the basis for its experimental X-55 aircraft, a one-off demonstrator using advanced composite materials in its fuselage.

British Aerospace 146 

The British Aerospace 146 had an illustrious career as a short-field specialist regional aircraft. The 146 family consisted of the original 146-100, the longer 146-200, and the 146-300 variant.

The type was remarketed in the early 1990s as the Avro RJ series, although the type had already fallen out of favor by this point, with airlines preferring newer regional twinjets over the 146’s four engines (with attendant additional fuel burn and maintenance requirements). 

Between 1983 and 2001, 387 146/RJ aircraft were produced. With this number, the type became the UK’s most successful civil jet airliner. In its later life, the type carved a niche for itself, serving hot-and-high mountainous airfields and special performance airports such as London City Airport (LCY), where it became the dominant type in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  

Of the 387 built, finding examples in regular passenger service has become increasingly difficult as the fleet gradually retires, is placed into long-term storage, or broken up. Just five remain listed as active in passenger-carrying roles, although a handful of others remain active as dedicated freighters (10) or converted fire-fighting aircraft in the US (nine).   

Of the remaining five that carry fare-paying passengers, two 146-200s are operated by Aerovias DAP Airlines of Chile, which are painted in a special penguin livery and tasked to fly tourists from the airline’s base in Punto Arenas (Chile) to remote airfields across South America, Patagonia, Antarctica, and the Falkland Islands. Air Libya operates a single 146-200 on domestic flights, while Yazd Airways in Iran flies two examples (one 146-200 and one 146-300), which are 37.3 and 34.4 years old, respectively.   

Bombardier CRJ100

The Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ) program was launched in early 1989 with a goal to build a regional commercial jet inspired by the popular Challenger 600 business jet. The first CRJ100 took its maiden flight in May 1991, and received an airworthiness certification in October 1992.

The launch customer for the type was Lufthansa CityLine, which continued to be a prominent customer for the CRJ series. It was later re-engined into the CRJ200, which offered airline customers a longer range option.

The CRJ200, in particular, became a huge commercial success, with 709 units entering service. The CRJ100 was less popular but still sold an impressive 226 units over its production life. The CRJ200 is still widely used, but the -100 is becoming a rare bird.

Of those 226 aircraft, just 12 remain in service today, mostly in the Middle East and Africa. South Africa’s CemAir, based out of OR Tambo International Airport (JNB), has a fleet of five, as does Russian regional carrier Rusline. The other two are with Renegade Air in Nairobi and Air Libya.

Fokker 70

The Fokker 100 is a 109-seat regional aircraft that was built in the Netherlands between 1986 and 1997. Its excellent short-field performance allowed airlines to access smaller regional airports, and 283 were built over the years.

Demand from airline customers was such that, in the early 1990s, Fokker developed a shorter version of the F100- the Fokker 70. It was only produced between 1994 and 1997, and just 47 were delivered.

Today, just 17 of the smaller F70s are still flying in commercial service. The largest such operator is Alliance Airlines in Australia, which tends to use its fleet of 12 F70s on fly-in-fly-out operations (‘FIFO’) in Western Australia, transporting staff to remote mining locations.

Other current operators of the F70 include Air Niugini (one), plus I-Fly Air, Skywards Express, and Jetways Airlines, all in Kenya, with two, one, and one aircraft, respectively.  

If you’re wondering about the bigger brother, the F100, out of the 296 built, 57 remain active with commercial carriers. From the list of remaining operators, the advantages of the type’s commonality with the F70 become apparent.  

Air Niugini still flies four, with Alliance in Australia again the largest operator with 20 remaining active. Network Aviation still flies 14 on behalf of QantasLink in Western Australia, while the remainder resides in Iran, with a plethora of smaller domestic carriers, including Iran Aseman Airlines, Qeshm Air, Kish Airlines, and Karun Air, plus a single plane operated by national carrier Iran Air.

The rarest narrowbodies in scheduled service

Airbus A318 

The Airbus A318 had a troubled life from the outset. The shortest member of the A320 family of aircraft, the ‘double-shrink’ A318 offered a capacity of between 107 and 132 passengers and a range of 3,570 miles (5,750km). Final assembly took place at the Airbus plant in Hamburg, Germany, between 2001 and 2013.     

Offering a high degree of commonality with its larger sisters, the A319, A320, and even the A321, Airbus had high hopes that its ‘Baby Bus’ would prove popular among customers of the larger variants.

However, unattractive operating economics and a high purchase price meant that the A318 program fell far short of expectations. It proved to be the planemaker’s least popular model to date.  

In total, just 80 Airbus A318s were built, many of which have since been scrapped, although some have found second lives as VIP aircraft once reconfigured from passenger-carrying roles.  

Of those that remain, just five are in regular passenger services with Air France, one of the early customers for the type. Frontier Airlines, the US-based launch customer for the type operated A318s until 2013, while British Airways deployed two A318s on their niche business class-only service between London City Airport and New York-JFK Airport (JFK) until 2019, when the route was scrapped. TAROM Romanian Airlines put its last two A318s up for sale in October 2024, withdrawing the type from active scheduled service.     

The five A318s remaining with Air France have an average age of around 18 years, with the first being delivered to the carrier in April 2006. The airline has been gradually phasing out its 131-seat A318s and replacing them with Airbus A220-300s, which seat 148 passengers and offer far better economics. 

The carrier uses its remaining aircraft prominently on domestic flights within France, from Paris Charles De Gaule Airport (CDG) to Toulouse and Nice, as well as to other European destinations such as Florence, Zurich, and Amsterdam. They are also used as backup aircraft when other members of the airline’s A320 family fleets suffer technical issues.  

Boeing 737-200 

The plane that launched many airlines into the jet age during the 1960s, the Boeing 737 has enjoyed an illustrious service over almost six decades. The first variant, the shorter-fuselage 737-100, sold just 30 examples.

Nevertheless, the upgraded and lengthened 737-200, which entered service with United Airlines in 1968, would become the trailblazer of the Boeing 737 family through the 1970s and 1980s. Over 1,100 were sold between 1967 and 1988 when the last example to roll off the Boeing production linen was delivered to Xiamen Airlines in China.

The simplicity of the 737-200, along with its flexibility and ability to operate in a range of climates and airfields, has prolonged its service life far beyond what was initially envisaged in the 1960s. Although many thousands of subsequent 737s have come since, just a handful of 737-200s still fly scheduled passenger services. 

Looking first at North America, where the bulk of the remaining 737-200s remain active, there are still nine flying in passenger operations.

Air Inuit, in Northern Canada, operates three examples, with C-GAIG being the oldest at an impressive 45.1 years old. These aircraft specialize in flying domestic passenger services and charter and cargo services to remote airfields across Northeast Canada from the carrier’s main base at Kuujjuaq Airport (YVP) in Kuujjuaq, Quebec.  

Next up is Montréal–Mirabel International Airport (YMX)-based Nolinor Aviation. This company is a Canadian charter airline with a fleet of 14 aircraft, of which six are active Boeing 737-200s. This group of aircraft includes a 50.1-year-old 737-200C, registered as C-GNLK, with the youngest being C-GNLW, a 737-200QC (a quick-change passenger/cargo variant) at a spritely 40.3 years old.  

Sadly, Chrono Jet, a Canadian charter operator that held two 737-200s, went into administration and ceased operations on October 18, 2024. The prospects for its pair of airworthy 737-200s do not look good, with both C-FBIM and C-GTVO likely to be scrapped, meaning that two fewer examples will remain in service.  

Elsewhere, a handful of 737-200s are left flying passengers regularly, offering travelers a fast-dwindling opportunity to travel on this vintage type. Halla Airlines in Nairobi (Kenya) operates a single aircraft, as do Estelar and Venezolana, both based in Venezuela.

In the same country, Avior Airlines still operates two. Aviatsa in Honduras utilizes its single 737-200 on passenger services, in what must be one of the most impressive and eye-catching liveries ever to be worn by the type.  

The rarest widebodies still in passenger service

Airbus A340-200

Once the pride of Airbus’ long-haul product range, the A340 established itself as a twin-aisle long-range airliner capable of carrying up to 290 passengers over a distance of 8,400 miles (3,500 km).     

Designed in conjunction with the comparatively shorter range A330 series, the A340-300 first flew in October 1991 and received certification, along with the shorter A340-200, on December 22, 1992. Both variants entered service in March 1993 with launch customers Lufthansa and Air France. The larger A340-500 and A340-600 came later, being jointly launched in December 1997.  

From 1991 to 2012, 377 of all A340 variants were produced by Airbus, of which the A340-300 was the most popular model with 218 sold. This compares to 28 A340-200s, 34 A340-500s, and 97 A340-600s.  

The premature downfall of the A340 family came in the form of the Boeing 777-200ER and 777-300ER, the capabilities of which matched those of the Airbus quadjet but by employing two rather than four engines, resulting in lower operating costs. 

As demand for Boeing’s newest long-hauler took off, the Airbus A340 was left flailing in its wake, and sales dried up. Heavy incentives and deals offered by Airbus could not save the program, and the end of production was announced in November 2011, although Airbus already had the A380 superjumbo to offer airlines at the top of its long-haul range.  

With 377 A340s of all variants produced, it is remarkable that just 55 remain in regular passenger service worldwide (three -200s, 35 -300s, one -500, and 16 -600s).

Of the surviving A340-200s, Conviasa of Venezuela operates two, while Mahan Air in Iran operates the other. Countries like Iran, which are subject to certain sanctions that prevent them from purchasing new aircraft from the West, are forced to fly fleets of vintage aircraft, as you’ll see from the rest of this widebody list.

Of the longer A340-300, five remain with Swiss leisure airline Edelweiss Air, one each with Hi Fly Malta and Iran Aseman Airlines, three with Kam Air in Afghanistan, and 12 with Lufthansa. Elsewhere, in Iran, Mahan Air holds three, and Meraj Air has one. SWISS is keeping four of the type active, while German charter operator USC employs one. 

Of the later models, the A340-500 and A340-600, the sole remaining operator of the shorter A340-500 is the Sands Corporation of Las Vegas, which flies regular customers to the Sands Casino/Hotel in Sin City, Nevada. Of the longer A340-600s, ten remain active with Lufthansa, one with Conviasa, four with Mahan Air, and one with USC. Others continue fulfilling VIP and Government roles.  

Boeing 747-400    

You don’t have to go far back in time to remember when all major international airlines had the mighty Boeing 747-400 as the backbone of their long-haul fleets.

From airlines that had just a handful to those whose fleets stretched well into double figures, the Boeing 747-400 became the archetypal long-haul airliner when deliveries started in 1989. Over the following twenty years, until 2009, 694 Boeing 747-400s were produced and could be seen at every major international airport worldwide. 

However, once large twin-engine aircraft such as the Boeing 777-300ER and the A330-300 began taking over many routes once the territory of the 747-400, orders began to wither.

Although a larger successor to the 747-400 was launched in the form of the 747-8I, the new variant failed to garner significant commercial aircraft. With just 36 passenger variants ordered, the entire 747 production program ended in 2023 with the final delivery of a 747-8F to Atlas Air, bringing 53 years of 747 production to an end.  

Of the -400 variant, Lufthansa still operates five, with its oldest being D-ABTK, which is 22.9 years old. US-based charter carrier Atlas Air operates five, three on behalf of the US military as troop carriers and the other two on general public charter flights.

Air China continues to operate a sole example in the form of 24.7-year-old B-2472, while Russian airline Rossiya still has RA-73286 on its books. Indeed, on October 25, 2024, this aircraft operated a rotation between Vladivostok and Rostov-on-Don on behalf of its parent company, Aeroflot.  

Airbus A310 

Launched in 1978 as a shorter version of the Airbus A300 but offering a longer range for intercontinental services, the Airbus A310 first flew in commercial service with launch customers Swissair and Lufthansa in April 1983.

Securing long-range ETOPS (Extended Range Twin Engine Operations) certification led to the A310 being heavily used on Transatlantic flights, on routes that only required a capacity of around 220 passengers.  

The aircraft was produced by Airbus in Toulouse between 1981 and 1998. Production ended when the newer Airbus A330-200 effectively took up the A310-300’s role. However, 255 A310s of all variants were produced, flying with many major airlines, including TAP Air Portugal, Air France, Lufthansa, Czech Airlines, British Caledonian, Delta Air Lines, Pan Am, Wardair Canada, Turkish Airlines, and Emirates.  

Of those 255 examples, just ten remain in regular passenger service, mostly in Iran, where carriers Iran Airtour, Yazd Airways, and Ava Airlines still operate three, one, and one of the type, respectively.

The only other airline with active A310s is Ariana, the national carrier of Afghanistan, which continues to operate two of the widebodies. Its pair includes YA-FGF, which is 33.6 years old and first flew for Turkish Airlines, alongside YA-FGG, which is 33 years old and was originally delivered to Hapag Lloyd in Germany in January 1992. 

Airbus A300

The world’s first twin-engine, double-aisle airliner first flew on October 28, 1972. Entering service with Air France in 1974, sales for the type began to trickle in as the aircraft proved itself in commercial service.

In 1976, it became the first ETOPS-compliant aircraft in the world and could be seen flying across the North Atlantic, the Bay of Bengal, and the Indian Ocean under a 90-minute ICAO rule.

Many variants were produced, including the original B2-100, of which 32 were built; the B2-200, which saw 25 sales; and the B2-320, with the Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines, which only sold four. Later, increased MTOW variants entered service with the B4-100 (47) and the B4-200, the most successful of the family with 136 units sold. Finally, the A300-600 arrived in 1984 and was manufactured until 2007.

In total, 561 A300s were produced, but just 13 remain in passenger service today. IranAir has a fleet of five, Qeshm Air has two, Meraj Airlines has two, and Iran Airtour has four.

Some of the most well-known variants of this iconic aircraft are the fleet of five that Airbus itself operates. The A300-600ST (Super Transporter), or ‘Beluga,’ is a specialist outsize transporter introduced in 1995 to transport aircraft parts between Airbus factories.

Although the fleet has been replaced by the newer Beluga XL, Airbus has retained its A300s. It has even obtained its own operator’s certificate, allowing it to offer transportation services to external clients with the planes.

Why are older types of aircraft kept in service?

Demand for air travel is soaring, and new passenger-carrying aircraft are being delivered as fast as the major manufacturers can build them. With a steady torrent of new airplanes entering service each month, more passengers are flying than ever before.

Despite this, the supply of new planes is frustrated by various issues. From supply chain blockages and engine problems to industrial action affecting production rates, quality control issues, and mandated safety inspections, airlines cannot get hold of new planes as fast as they need them. 

Consequently, many operators are retaining older aircraft in their fleets for longer, so they have adequate fleet capacity to satisfy demand. This means that several types of aircraft will remain in commercial service for longer, providing the traveling public with perhaps the last chance to fly on them before they take up their places in the aviation history books and are gone from our skies forever.  

2024 was all set to be the final year of commercial flights for DC-3 PH-PBA (named ‘Princes Amalia’). In February 2024, it was revealed that regular passenger flights on the aircraft would come to an end at the end of the 2024 season, to the bitter disappointment of all those involved or who had an interest in the aircraft. The decision to end such flights was said to be based on a series of considerations that effectively rendered the continued operations of such a classic old airliner economically unviable.   

In an e-mail to supporters, issued by the DDA on February 12, 2024, it was revealed that the retirement of the DC-3 had become unavoidable. The increasing costs of hangarage, landing fees, and insurance had become prohibitive for a volunteer organization like DDA Classic Airlines that was unable to secure long-term financial support. Other factors that contributed to the decision to retire the DC-3 included the rising costs of fuel and the difficulty in finding maintenance volunteers.

After a hugely successful 2024 flying season, PH-PBA operated what was presumed to be its last passenger-carrying flight on October 16, 2024, from Maastricht-Aachen Airport (MAS) to Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport AMS). Indeed, upon its arrival in Amsterdam, the aircraft was met by a crowd of well-wishers and supporters, while  ‘Princes Amalia’ herself was greeted with a traditional water salute by two Schiphol Airport fire and rescue trucks. There was even a farewell ceremony held in the plane’s honor, with many of those present expecting the aircraft to then be sold overseas or worse still, scrapped entirely.

However, after lengthy negotiations, on October 19, 2024, the DDA board of directors revealed at a meeting of donors and sponsors that the aircraft will now be remaining in the Netherlands after all. The plane is now due to enjoy a new lease of life as part of the collection held at the Aviodrome Museum in Lelystad. The DC-3 will continue to fly on a reduced frequency and will be supported in its operation by a team of volunteers, crews, and engineers from the DDA.

The setup of the operation will change to allow for this, with the organization surrendering the Air Operating Certificate (AOC) under which it has previously flown. This will allow the organization, which will be renamed, to free itself of regulatory burden and the associated costs involved in holding such a certificate. The aircraft will now operate under the Museum as its custodian with all current members of the DDA being asked to donate to the Museum rather than a specific fund to support the aircraft. Additionally, DC-3 flights operated by the Aviodrome will only be accessible to donors and sponsors of the aircraft.

The Aviodrome, or ‘Nationaal Luchtvaart-Themapark Aviodrome’ to give the attraction its full title, is a large aerospace museum in the Netherlands that has been located at Leylstad Airport since 2003. The Museum is home to a huge range of ex-military and civilian aircraft, some of which bookmark the country’s role in aviation history. Such exhibits include a KLM Boeing 747-200, a Fokker 100, a Fokker F27 (x2), and a Lockheed Constellation in the original bare metal livery of KLM.   

Have you ever had the opportunity to fly on a Douglas DC-3? If so, tell us about your experience in the comments below. We’d love to hear all about it!

Boeing had led the way with the development of its early jetliners – the Boeing 707, 720 and tri-jet 727. However, when airlines worldwide called for a smaller twinjet version of the 727, the illustrious 737 family was born, with the first flight of this game-changing aircraft taking place in 1967. The 737 has since become the most popular commercial jet aircraft ever produced. Around 17,000 have been built and it is still in production today.  

Other manufacturers saw what was happening with the 737 and tried to compete by designing and building their own narrowbody twinjets. Some were successful to a degree, the Douglas DC-9 family being probably the most notable example. Others, including the Sud Aviation Caravelle and the British Aircraft Corporation One-Eleven which were also competing in the same market, ultimately fell short of the 737’s soaring success.   

However, there was one aircraft that, despite bearing a strong resemblance to the Boeing 737, failed to attract any real interest. With only 12 examples ever built, it has become infamous as one of the most spectacular commercial failures in the history of commercial aircraft design. 

AeroTime examines the story behind the spectacular rise and fall of the Dassault Aviation Mercure – a French competitor to the Boeing 737 that promised so much on paper but ultimately failed to take off.  

Why was the Mercure designed? 

Having noted the increasing dominance of the Boeing 737 in the short-haul airliner market during the late 1960s and early 1970s, French aircraft manufacturer Générale Aéronautique Marcel Dassault (GAMD), known today as Dassault Aviation (‘Dassault’), announced its desire to enter the commercial aviation market. This was an unprecedented step for the company, which had only produced military aircraft and light business jets up until that point. Now, Dassault decided to meet the challenge head-on by launching its own aircraft onto the market, hoping to capture some of the booming demand for this type of aircraft.   

Given the huge costs involved in designing and constructing an all-new aircraft, the company enlisted assistance from other aerospace companies, as well as seeking financial assistance from the French Government. Indeed, in many ways, the development of the Dassault Mercure would set the benchmark for what would become Airbus Industrie in the years that followed.    

Dassault joined forces with Fiat (Italy), CASA (Spain), ADAP (Belgium), Emmen (Switzerland), and Canadair (Canada) to form a consortium that could take the Mercure from the drawing board into the air. The consortium aimed to build a faster alternative to the Boeing 737 that could attract the custom of European and US airlines, as well as those further afield. The proposed aircraft was an airliner with a capacity for 110 to 120 passengers. 

The first stage of development was to identify the target market. Analysts at Dassault conducted a detailed study that found that a significant number of routes being operated by 737s covered domestic short-haul routes distances. The study examined 3,500 routes and discovered that 80% of them were of a stage length of 940 miles (1,500km) or under.  

Further analysis forecasted that, between 1973 and 1980, the market would require around 1,500 aircraft that could each transport between 130 and 150 passengers, with fuel efficiency and short frequent sectors seen as the key to commercial success. The company considered several aircraft designs, configurations, and powerplant options (including using Rolls-Royce Spey engines already in use on the BAC One-Eleven). 

The design that was finally settled upon was a low-wing twinjet with a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbojets slung under the wings. These tried-and-tested powerplants had already been in service with the Boeing 737 and DC-9 for several years at this point, and they enabled Dassault to develop a slightly larger and faster aircraft than planned, seating up to 150 passengers with a larger wing offering an extended range.          

The new aircraft would be called ‘Mercure’, as decided by the company’s founder Marcel Dassault who wanted to name the new aircraft after a mythological figure. Dassault opted for Mercure (or ‘Mercury’ in English), a Roman god with a winged helmet and sandals allowing high-speed travel.       

Specifications 

The Mercure was to be flown by a crew of three, two pilots and a flight engineer, and have a maximum capacity of 162 passengers in an all-economy layout. In terms of dimensions, it was 34.84m (114 ft 4 in) long and 11.36 m (37 ft 3 in) high, with a wingspan of 30.55 m (100 ft 3 in).  

The aircraft would have a maximum take-off weight of 56,500 kg (124,561 lb) with a fuel capacity of 18,400 liters (4,900 US gal / 4,000 imp gal), and be powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D-15 low bypass turbofan engines, each capable of generating 7,000kg (15,500 lbs) of thrust.  

The Mercure had a maximum speed of 437 mph (704 km/h) and a normal cruising speed of 575 mph (926 km/h). Its maximum range was 1,295 miles (2,084 km), allowing for 4,100 kg (9,000 lb) of fuel reserves with a maximum certified service ceiling of 12,000m (39,000 ft).  

The higher passenger capacity of the Mercure over the Boeing 737 (162 versus 130) meant that it could carry more people than its US rival, although operating with this number of passengers did reduce the Mercure’s range capability.   

The Mercure’s maiden flight 

The Mercure’s first flight took place from Bordeaux-Merignac Airport (BOD) on May 28, 1971. It was operated by a crew of three – Dassault’s Chief Pilot Jean Corout, First Officer Jerome Resal, and Test Engineer Gerard Joyeuse. The Mercure’s test program continued smoothly throughout 1971 without any major issues or the need for any significant redesigns.  (Note: the video below has no audio).

By the end of 1971, sales teams for Dassault were crisscrossing the globe and attending air shows to meet with potential airline customers, extolling the virtues of their company’s new jet. In the meantime, in anticipation of large orders rolling in for the Mercure, Dassault established four factories to facilitate production on a large scale. These factories were located in Poitiers, Seclin, Martignas and Istres. 

On January 30, 1972, almost a year after the Mercure’s maiden flight, the first firm orders for the aircraft were received from the French domestic airline Air Inter (subsequently absorbed into Air France in 1997). Initially, the airline ordered 10 Mercures, which the carrier saw as an ideal aircraft to use on its domestic network within France. The type entered service with the carrier on June 4, 1974, performing a flight between Paris-Orly Airport (ORY) and Toulouse-Blagnac Airport (TLS) in southwest France (now home to Airbus).  

However, after the celebrations for the type’s first commercial flight were over, the mood at Dassault quickly darkened. With just ten aircraft on the order books from Air Inter, there was little interest being shown by any other airline, and executives at Dassault were already staring at a potential commercial failure of colossal proportions.        

An overwhelming lack of interest  

Coming several years after the Boeing 737 and the Douglas DC-9, both of which had been hugely popular among airlines worldwide and sold in their hundreds, the Mercure was entering a market that was already well served by its two US competitors. These two aircraft in question had garnered popular support among passengers and loyalty among operators. In response, Dassault pivoted its focus to market the Mercure as a potential successor to the Douglas DC-9. However, Dassault had faced a huge uphill battle to gain orders from the outset, particularly in the US market where airlines were fiercely loyal to airplanes made by US-based companies,  

Along with this, various economic and geopolitical events prevalent in the early 1970s made selling jet aircraft, particularly in the US, increasingly challenging for Dassault. Such factors included the devaluation of the US dollar and the global oil crisis, sparked when OPAEC (Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries) announced that it was implementing a global sale embargo against countries that had supported Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. 

As supplies of crude oil dried up, the resulting steep rise in oil prices had a huge impact on airline profitability, limiting carriers’ ability to acquire new aircraft. Stuck with the aircraft that they were already operating, the airline industry began redeploying short-haul aircraft on longer routes – something the Mercure, unlike the 737, simply did not have the range for.      

With the prospect of no further orders being placed for the Mercure and with the order for the initial Air Inter aircraft fulfilled, Dassault took the tough decision to close the Mercure assembly lines on December 19, 1975. The decision came just over four years since the type had first flown to much fanfare in Bordeaux in May 1971.     

Service history 

Air Inter, with its 10 aircraft, would become the only ever airline operator of the Dassault Mercure. Indeed, one of the two prototypes Dassault had built for the Mercure’s development program would later be added to the Air Inter fleet in addition.  

Given the high costs involved in operating such a niche fleet of airplanes, the French Government agreed to pay a subsidy to Air Inter to continue flying the home-grown plane long after the airline had considered scrapping them. Air Inter would also fly the nascent Airbus A300 alongside its Mercure fleet, although the latter would be replaced in the mid-1980s by the new fly-by-wire Airbus A320.   

Despite a promising start to its flying career, and then securing an order from an airline on home soil to get the program up and running, Dassault only ever produced 12 Mercures. Air Inter began withdrawing the type from its schedules in 1992 and on April 29, 1995, the carrier’s last two Mercures operated their final commercial flights and were retired from service. 

Throughout the Mercure fleet’s combined cumulative operational lifetime, the type accumulated a total of 360,000 flight hours, during which 44 million passengers were flown on 440,000 individual flights without any accidents occurring. The type also had a 98% despatch reliability – an impressive figure for the era.  

Why did the Mercure program fail?  

Ultimately, there can be no denying that the Mercure program was an unmitigated commercial disaster for Dassault. With just 10 airframes sold, the company’s order book fell significantly short of the program’s break-even point of 150 aircraft. Dassault itself is thought to have survived only with support from the French Government.  

The Mercure was a case of the wrong aircraft at the wrong time. In the first half of the 1970s, with many airlines failing, those that survived steered away from ordering new airplanes. Those who did place orders tended to stick with manufacturers they knew and trusted in the form of Boeing and Douglas.  

The Mercure also received criticism for its lack of network adaptability, with its ultra-short range making it suitable only for a limited number of routes. Dassault also experienced many airlines claiming that the plane used engines that were becoming outdated, rendering them loud and inefficient in terms of fuel economy – a critical factor during the 1973 oil crisis and the years of austerity that followed.  

To try to revive the Mercure program, Dassault went back to the drawing board to design an updated version, known as the Mercure 200. The new variant was to be powered by a pair of Snecma/General Electric CFM56 engines (later also used on the A320 and 737 Classic families).  

However, the proposed updated model caught the attention of very few airlines, apart from Air France which expressed only a passing interest. This was not enough to justify another tranche of development costs. With Dassault having learned its lesson with the original version of the Mercure, the Mercure 200 concept was quickly abandoned.  

European commercial aviation manufacturers would go on to learn from the mistakes made by the Mercure program. The first flight of the Airbus A300 took place on October 28, 1972 – an event that paved the way for the thousands of Airbus aircraft that have rolled off the production line in the 52 years since.   

Where are they now? 

Six of the 12 Mercures produced by Dassault remain in existence and are on display at sites in Germany and France. Five remain on home soil, while a sixth remains on public daily in a German aviation museum, as a testament to pan-European endeavor and cooperation. Sadly, none of the six remain airworthy. The remaining six airframes were scrapped once retired from service with Air Inter.  

Of the six that remain, their whereabouts and details are as follows 

F-BTTB (construction number 2) – first flew on May 2, 1974, and is currently on display at the Speyer Technik Museum in Germany.  

F-BTTD (construction number 4) – first flew on July 22, 1974, and is currently on display at Musée de l ‘Air et de l’Espace at Paris-Le Bourget Airport.  

F-BTTE (construction number 5) – first flew on September 11, 1974, and is preserved at the ESMA Aviation Academy as a ground trainer at Montpellier Frejorgues Airport (MPL). 

F-BTTG (construction number 7) – first flew on December 31, 1974, and is now partially preserved (forward fuselage only) at the Musée de l’Épopée de l’Industrie et de l’Aéronautique (Albert) at Morlaix-Ploujean Airport (MXN). 

F-BTTH (construction number 8) – first flew on February 11, 1975, and can be seen at Marseille-Provence Airport (MRS) where it is used as a ground trainer aircraft for airport personnel.   

F-BTTI (construction number 9) – first flew on March 17, 1975, and is on display at Bordeaux-Mérignac Airport (BOD) as an instructional airframe at the University of Bordeaux. 

Conclusion 

Although the Dassault Mercure set out to take on the US-based aircraft manufacturers, its ambitions were simply too lofty and its performance too limited to ever make a significant dent in its rivals’ sales figures. Becoming available at a time when airlines were already fully complemented with new narrowbody short-haul planes, or were simply not spending due to constrained finances, the Mercure simply had nowhere to go, other than finding a niche purpose with a carrier in its own backyard. 

Thankfully, examples of the Mercure still exist to preserve the type’s memory and cement its place in the aviation history books. Sadly though, the Mercure is often remembered for negative reasons, standing as a testament to a commercial aircraft program failure of epic proportions.  

However, despite this, since the failure of the Mercure project, Dassault has gone on to become one of France’s aviation and defense success stories, exporting its products to customers worldwide. These include military, space, and defense hardware as well as a globally renowned family of private jets.       

The history of aviation is littered with the stories of aircraft that have tried and failed to carve a niche for themselves. But who knows – without the cooperative international spirit behind the Dassault Mercure, would the world ever have witnessed the spectacular rise of Airbus and its products in the decades since?   

According to research by the National World War Two Museum in New Orleans, 15 million died in battle while 45 million civilians were killed – with some estimates suggesting a further 50 million people may have died in China alone.  

Among the nations that suffered the highest numbers of deaths were the Soviet Union, Germany, Japan and China, with all four suffering loses in the millions.  

After World War I, technology had rapidly developed, and World War II saw the introduction of ever more sophisticated aircraft, weapons, ships, logistical support, intelligence, communications and medicine.  

Bombers, fighters and transport planes dominated the aerial sphere, and aircraft such as the Spitfire, Lancaster Bomber, Mustang and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress became beacons of victory that still hold their iconic status 80 years on.  

While World War II ultimately ended with the surrender of Germany, Japan and Italy, there were many times during the conflict when an outcome favoring the United States (US), Britain, France and the Soviet Union seemed inconceivable.  

And without key turning points involving aircraft during the war, the outcome could have been very different, allowing for a Nazi victory.  

The Battle of Britain 

Having invaded and occupied swathes of Europe, in June 1940 German forces entered Paris unopposed and took control of France.  

Having declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, following its invasion of Poland, Britain now stood only with its Commonwealth Allies.  

Initially, Hitler had hoped his victories across Europe would force the British to seek a peace settlement, but when it became clear that Britain had no intention of yielding, he began his plan for a land invasion, known as Operation Sea Lion.  

To successfully invade and occupy Britain, Germany would need to gain air superiority. So it was that, in July 1940, Hitler instructed the Luftwaffe to begin attacks in what would become the first ever major battle fought entirely in the air. 

In July 1940, Hitler told the Luftwaffe: “The British Air Force must be eliminated to such an extent that it will be incapable of putting up any sustained opposition to the invading troops.” 

The stakes for Britain and Europe could not have been higher. The Soviet Union and the US were yet to enter the war, and a defeat for Britain and its Commonwealth Allies, including Canada, New Zealand and Australia, could leave Germany totally unopposed.  

In a key speech delivered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on June 18, 1940, the gravity of an imminent air attack was made clear to MPs in Parliament.  

Famously, Churchill declared: “The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free, and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.” 

Churchill feared that, should the Allies be defeated during the Battle of Britain, then the entire world, including the US, would “sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister”. 

He concluded: “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘this was their finest hour’.” 

The Battle of Britain began on July 10, 1940, with German bombers targeting British ports and convoys. 

According to Britannica, it was on August 13, 1940, when the main offensive (known as Adlerangriff or Eagle Attack) began, with attacks launched against air bases, aircraft factories and radar hubs.  

#OTD in 1940, the Battle of Britain began, with the Luftwaffe attacking shipping in the English Channel and Channel ports and coastal radar stations on the South coast. There were widespread night-time raids all along the coast. #WW2 #HISTORY pic.twitter.com/WC215J8z20

— RG Poulussen (@rgpoulussen) July 10, 2023

Despite having fewer pilots than the Germans, the British had several distinct advantages over their aggressors. 

Britain had developed ‘Chain Home’, the first early warning radar network ever built, which could detect approaching German aircraft up to 80 miles away and therefore remove the element of surprise.  

The British had also developed the ‘Dowding System’, which allowed Fighter Command to collate information from a range of sources, such as radar and spotters, and then coordinate how its air defenses would respond. 

According to the Royal Air Force (RAF), at the height of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had only 749 fighter aircraft available, up against 2,550 Luftwaffe planes. 

However, Britain had superior aircraft in the form of Hawker Hurricanes and Supermarine Spitfires, plus the support of pilots and volunteers from 13 different nations who became affectionately known as ‘The Few’. 

By August 1940, the Germans had lost more than 600 aircraft, the RAF only 260.   

Indebted to the efforts and heroism of the British pilots, in August 1940, Churchill famously said: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”. 

Struggling to break the RAF resistance, in September 1940, Hitler began an eight-month bombing campaign known as ‘The Blitz’, in which industrial infrastructure, towns, and cities in Britain were targeted. 

While the Battle of Britain technically continued until October 1940, this change in tactic signaled that Germany’s ambition to dominate the skies over Europe’s largest island was failing.  

On October 12, 1940, Hitler announced that Operation Sea Lion would be postponed during the winter, but the plan was never revisited. Germany’s attention instead turned East to Russia.  

Nevertheless, the Blitz continued until May 11, 1941, mainly under the cover of darkness. It resulted in the deaths of 43,000 civilians, but even then, the Luftwaffe could not break Britain’s spirits.  

The German’s campaign suffered from poor intelligence and the lack of a strategy to destroy British war industry in any methodical way. 

Defeated, Germany faced the first significant loss during World War II. Crucially, the world was shown that the German military machine that had ravished Europe was not invincible.  

Attack on Pearl Harbour 

As the war raged in Europe, the majority of the public in the US were against supporting Britain in its fight against Hitler and Nazi Germany.  

Since the horrors of World War I, the US had adopted a position of isolationism, with most Americans holding the firm belief that the country should stay clear of foreign affairs.  

Americans who thought the US should intervene argued that, without their country’s involvement, it would not be long before they woke up to find a dictator in control of vast swathes of the world. 

According to the National World War II Museum, despite public opinion softening during the Battle of Britain, the British were left to defend themselves 

However, any such reluctance evaporated on December 7, 1941, when Imperial Japan launched a surprise aerial attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor on Oahu Island, Hawaii.  

Tensions between the US and Japan had been running high for a decade, since the Japanese invaded the Chinese region of Manchuria in 1931. 

In the years that followed, Japan continued to drift towards imperialism as it sought increasing power and valuable resources. 

In 1937, the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out between Japan and China, as the Japanese continued to seek dominance in the region. Then, in 1940, Japan invaded French Indochina. 

According to The National World War II Museum, following the invasion of French Indochina, Japan planned to take both British Malaya and the oil-rich Dutch East Indies. 

On July 26, 1941, in response to its aggression, the US froze Japanese assets which essentially removed Japan’s access to its oil.  

With talks between Japan and the US gridlocked, the Japanese began planning an audacious attack against Britain’s naval home in Singapore and Pearl Harbor, with the hope this would free up access to Dutch East Indies. 

On November 26, 1941, Japan planned for 400 planes, including Mitsubishi A6M Zeros, to travel on six Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carriers to a position in the Pacific Ocean 200 miles from Pearl Harbor.  

Just under two weeks later, at 07:48 on December 7, 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor began. 

In the first wave, 177 Japanese aircraft were launched to destroy as much of the US fleet as possible. 

According to the Imperial War Museum, the first wave of attack targeted aircraft hangars, planes and ‘Battleship Row’, which was made up of seven powerful battleships.  

Four were hit, including the USS Oklahoma and USS West Virgina. On USS Arizona, a gunpowder store was struck causing a huge explosion that sunk the ship, killing 1,177 of its crew.  

After the initial attack wave, a second was launched involving a further 163 Japanese planes, which continued to inflict further devastation on the US naval base.  

In all, the attack lasted around two hours, resulting in the deaths of 2,403 service personnel, plus the destruction of 188 aircraft and damage to 21 warships.  

However, the attack could have been much worse had three of the Pacific Fleet’s aircraft carriers not been out at sea at the time of the attack.  

Many of the damaged ships were also repaired or salvaged after being sunk, then restored to fight in more battles during the war.  

The day after the Pearl Harbor attack, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for the declaration of war against Japan. An hour later, the US formally agreed to take up arms.  

Subsequently, Germany and Italy also declared war on the US and President Roosevelt followed suit.  

While Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was considered a success for the aggressor in the short term, it had failed to destroy American repair shops and fuel-oil tanks.  

The Japanese also miscalculated the American response in thinking that, despite the attack, the US would still adopt its position of isolationism from the world.  

While the American public may have been divided on the subject of helping their European Allies prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the majority now firmly backed the US entering the war.  

With the US prompted to take action, the attack on Pearl Harbor fundamentally changed the landscape of World War II, as the most powerful military force on Earth had now entered the conflict.  

The Battle of Kursk 

The Battle of Kursk was the largest tank battle in history and one of the defining moments in the Second World War.  

Fought on Russian Soviet territory, the Germans and the Red Army battled with some 8,000 tanks, 3,000,000 troops and 5,000 aircraft. 

The battle began on July 5, 1943, just months after Germany and the Soviet Union had clashed in Stalingrad, site of the Second World War’s deadliest fight.  

While the Battle of Kursk is mostly known for its land conflict, the month-long fight was also the largest aerial battle in history.  

According to Norwich University, the battle took in the “costliest single day of aerial warfare and the largest tank battle in history”.  

The start of the battle had been postponed many times and the Soviets had gained invaluable intelligence about the attack, giving the Red Army time to prepare and strengthen its defenses.  

The Battle of Kursk would see German Tiger tanks and Soviet T-34s come face to face on the battlefield, but both Hitler and Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin knew that air superiority would be crucial for achieving victory. 

On the German side there were Junkers Ju 87s, Junkers Ju 88s, Heinkel He 111s and Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter planes, while the Soviets deployed Il-2 Sturmoviks, Petlyakov Pe-2s and Yakovlev Yak-9s.  

Overall, the German planes were seen as more capable, but the Soviets had more aircraft and were better resourced in terms of fuel and other important supplies.  

The Germans launched Operation Citadel on July 5, 1943, and on the first day, their planes dominated the air above the battlefields in Kursk.  

However, according to historian Dan Zamansky, the dominance was short lived. Within a few days, the Soviet Union was exploiting its superior aircraft numbers.    

Zamansky argues that the Germans lacked tankbusters and were overstretched – plus, by July 9, 1943, its pilots were exhausted and on the brink of failure.  

“In the north, there was talk of a temporary pause in the offensive, while in the south General Hoth complained that ‘the operation has temporarily run out of steam’. The truth was not so ambiguous. The Luftwaffe, in particular, was exhausted. It could only manage 481 attack sorties in the north that day, a third of what it had achieved on July 5. In a sign of desperation, reconnaissance aircraft employed as improvised bombers flew 110 of these sorties. Individual pilots were exhausted and overwhelmed,” Zamansky wrote in a 2022 article for HistoryNet.  

On July 12, 1943, with Allied forces landing in Sicily, Hitler cancelled Operation Citadel and aircraft units flew north.  

That same day, the Soviets launched Operation Kutuzov, and then, at the start of August 1943, Operation Rumyantsev. By August 23, 1943, the Battle of Kursk was over.  

During the Battle of Kursk, Germany lost around 200 aircraft and the Soviet Union 1,130 aircraft. The month-long conflict caused around 800,000 Soviet casualties and 200,000 German casualties. 

The loss at the Battle of Kursk marked the last time that German would launch an offence on the Eastern Front and was referred to as the “last gasp of Nazi aggression”. How different it could have been, though, if Germany had won the aerial battle.  

The new partnership will see Virgin Atlantic transport RAF Museum representatives between the UK and the US, enabling them to attend events hosted by the RAF Museum’s American Foundation that support the RAF Museum’s fundraising opportunities in North America.  

According to a statement issued by the RAF Museum announcing the deal, “The collaboration between the RAF Museum and Virgin Atlantic highlights a shared dedication to inspiring everyone with the RAF story while preserving and celebrating aviation history and strengthening transatlantic connections.” 

“We are thrilled to welcome Virgin Atlantic as our first Official Airline Partner,” said Edward Sharman, Head of Development at the RAF Museum. The airline joins us in our mission to inspire everyone with the RAF story, the people who shape it, and its place in our lives.”  

“Virgin Atlantic’s strong connections between the UK and the US will significantly enhance our engagement with supporters in the United States. As a registered charity, this additional support for the Museum will help ensure the continued care of our exhibitions and collections. With a shared passion and dedication to aviation, I am very excited about the benefits this partnership will bring as the Museum continues to grow and honor the legacy of the RAF,” he added. 

The deal between the RAF Museum and Virgin Atlantic, which celebrated its 40th anniversary in June 2024, was finalized during a recent visit by Virgin Atlantic staff to the RAF Museum’s London site.  

The Virgin Atlantic Corporate Team received an extensive tour from the Museum’s volunteers and made use of the Museum’s meeting facilities. As part of the new partnership, Virgin Atlantic employees will gain access to exclusive behind-the-scenes experiences, public events, venue hire discounts, and corporate volunteering opportunities at the RAF Museum sites in Hendon, North London, and its second site at Cosford in the UK Midlands. 

“The US is Virgin Atlantic’s heartland, so we’re delighted to support the RAF Museum as its Official Airline Partner, flying guests across the Atlantic in style,” said Thomas Maynard, Director of Global Corporate Sales at Virgin Atlantic. 

“Our mission is to inspire everyone to take on the world and our partnership will further enable the RAF Museum to educate guests about the RAF’s incredible history and its role in the fascinating world of aviation,” he added. 

The RAF Museum in London features six hangars full of aircraft, objects, and immersive experiences that represent 100 years of Royal Air Force operations in the UK and around the world. Visitors can also experience flight simulators and listen to stories of those who have served in the RAF and those who have lost their lives in service. 

The RAF Museum’s attractions also include aviation artwork and offer special activities for children and families as well as special events and exhibitions, all commemorating the long history of the RAF over the decades. 

AeroTime looks at the history of the airport – its conception and growth over the past half-century, its iconic and groundbreaking terminal design, and the key events over that period that have earned CDG a place in aviation’s history books, for better and for worse. 

Background to CDG Airport   

Following the conclusion of the Second World War, France experienced economic recovery on an unprecedented level. As the country clawed its way back from the ravages of war and German occupation, its economy began to boom, with annual growth rates peaking at 5% per annum. Additionally, demand for air travel soared in the post-war years, going on to reach even higher levels once the jet age arrived in the late 1950s.  

At that time Paris had two main airports – Orly Airport (ORY) to the south of the city and Le Bourget (LBG) to the northeast. Orly (originally called Orly-Villeneuve Airport) opened in 1932, to provide additional capacity for the already constrained Le Bourget. The latter had opened just thirteen years earlier, in 1919, while Orly was used as a German air base during WWII.   

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, traffic at both Paris airports continued to rise, but further expansion was restricted by both airports’ relatively urban locations. Additionally, Le Bourget’s capacity was limited to just three million passengers per year. By 1952, this had forced national carrier Air France to relocate its entire operation to Orly, where there was still space for growth and for additional runways to be built.   

Yet, with traffic growing at around 15% per year, it soon became clear to the French authorities that even Orly would be unable to sustain the rates of growth being seen in air travel for long. Forecasters predicted that the facility would reach its capacity of 15 million passengers per year by 1975. Therefore, urgent action was needed.  

In 1957, the search began for potential sites for an all-new Paris airport, with the strict criterion that any such site should offer considerable room for future expansion. It was hoped that this approach would avoid another overspill situation as previously encountered at Le Bourget and Orly.  

Eventually, planners identified a site close to the satellite town of Roissy, 14 miles (22 km) northeast of the French capital which was deemed suitable for the development of the new airport. The land around Roissy was mainly used for agriculture and provided the ‘greenfield’ site required for the new airport, unencumbered by either major settlements or built-up areas.  

Construction began in 1964, at which point the project had the working title of Paris-Nord Airport. However, before opening its name was changed, initially to Roissy Airport, before ultimately opening as Roissy-Charles De Gaulle Airport in honor of the former President of France who had died in 1970 and had been instrumental in getting the airport built. 

The airport eventually dropped the reference to the nearby town and became known simply as Paris-Charles De Gaulle Airport, the name it still goes by today.  

Design and construction 

The site at Roissy was advantageous for other reasons. The sparsely populated area meant that there would be little issue with noise pollution from the early jet aircraft, but additionally, accessibility to the location was secured by the opening of a brand new multi-lane autoroute from Paris to Brussels that traversed the area. 

When started work on the new airport, its designers knew that it had to be huge and scalable – not only accommodating the rapid rise in air travel at the time. but also to future-proof it for generations to come.  

Paris itself saw its population rise exponentially, growing by 25% to around eight million between 1954 and 1968. Those involved also had the foresight to realize that the new airport would have to compete with the likes of London, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam for passengers flying to Europe in the future.  

Additionally, the design team, led by Chief Engineer Jacques Block, was mindful that aircraft likely to serve the airport in the future would get larger. While the world had already seen the introduction of the four-engined intercontinental Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, larger aircraft were already on the drawing board in the shape of the Lockheed TriStar, the McDonell Douglas DC-10, and ultimately, the Boeing 747.  

Projections showed that the airport would eventually be required to handle up to 150 landings and take-offs per hour. Given that a single runway can only accommodate around 40 movements per hour, the designers knew they would have to build an airport with at least four runways for the anticipated growth in air traffic.  

In 1966, the design team revealed its plans to the public for the first time. The new airport was to be the largest anywhere in the world at the time, covering 12.7 square miles (33 sq. km). The plans allowed for five runways on the site, with a pair of two parallel runways running east to west to the north and south of the main terminal area and with one further runway to allow for crosswinds at the location.  

Both the runways and taxiways were designed to accommodate aircraft even larger than the Boeing 747, with the runways being capable of extension beyond their 11,800ft (3,600m) length in the future as necessary.       

As for the terminal (or ‘aérogare’ in French), the designers were briefed to produce a building concept that was as eye-catching as it was functional. Basing their design on a central circular terminal building with seven outlying wedge-shaped satellite buildings or ‘docks’, the team aimed to maximize passenger flows while also keeping walking and transit times (from car to aircraft) as low as possible, a layout concept already heavily in use in the US.  

Each satellite building would be designed to include seven passenger boarding bridges and aircraft stands, four of which could handle Boeing 747s. Additionally, the terminal would see all critical airport functions ‘stacked’ across several stories, with separate levels for car parking and ground transportation, arrivals, departures, and administration offices. Each floor would be connected by a series of ramps, moving walkways, and escalators, again minimizing walking distances. 

The airport’s original plans called for five similar terminal buildings, all built in the central area between the runways. The six terminals would be linked to a centralized main building which would feature hotels, restaurants, and shops. It would also be connected via a light rail line to downtown Paris and offer helicopter connections to Orly Airport and other city locations.

However, even before the first terminal had been completed, the plan for multiple circular terminals with their associated satellite buildings had been dropped due to budget constraints, as had the plan for the central building. 

However, the original design for the terminal building remained, despite the cutbacks. Officially known as ‘Aérogare 1’, the building was to become the centerpiece of the new airport. Designed by Paul Andreu, an architect employed by the airport’s developer Aéroports De Paris (ADP), the building would be a circular building of concrete construction with a diameter of 630ft (192m) and a height of 173ft (52.7m). Designed in the avant-garde ‘Brutalist’ style of architecture, it was considered to be ‘in vogue’ with current building design trends.  

The functions that had been planned to be in the main central building were eventually incorporated into the Aérogare 1 design, meaning that upon completion, the building stood ten stories high. 

Grand opening  

The new Paris-Charles De Gaulle Airport was officially opened on March 8, 1974, by the then-French Prime Minister Piere Messmer. It had been eight years since construction had first started, with the project costing $275m to complete. It featured just one terminal building and a single runway, and upon opening was allocated its iconic three-letter airport code ‘CDG’ by the International Air Transport Association (IATA).  

The airport handled its first commercial flight five days later, on March 13, 1974, in the form of a Boeing 747 operated by US airline, Trans World Airways (TWA) from New York-JFK Airport. This first arrival had only sixty passengers onboard. Meanwhile, the first commercial departure from the new airport involved an Air France Sud-Aviation Caravelle taking off with just a single passenger traveling onboard to enjoy the historic moment.    

Other airlines soon began transferring flights to CDG from Orly and Le Bourget (which later closed to airline traffic). Before long, the airport boasted a rollcall of major international carriers such as Pan Am, SAS, Japan Airlines, Air Afrique, Saudia, and British Airways, along with France’s two other mainline carriers of the time, Air Inter and UTA (both of which later merged into Air France).  

Over its first year of operations, the airport handled 2.5 million passengers and 131,000 tons of cargo.  

Further development 

Use of the new airport grew quickly after that first year of operations and by 1976 traffic totals had reached 7.5 million passengers. A second runway opened that same year, and a rail link with central Paris also opened to the public for the first time. 

After the early proposal to build a series of round terminals was shelved, the airport pressed ahead with the design and construction of a second terminal (Terminal 2). This building was more of a conventional design and has been expanded several times since to become a series of smaller satellite buildings, each being designated Terminals 2A through to 2G accordingly. Terminal 2 opened in 1981, with Terminal 2B soon following in March 1982.  

Terminals 2C and 2D followed, with Terminal 2E opening in 2003 as a dedicated terminal facility for Air France and its SkyTeam alliance partner airlines. Today, the entire Terminal 2 remains in this configuration, with walkways and a light-rail transit (CDGVAL) connecting the individual satellite buildings.   

Terminal 3 was opened in 1990 to handle charter flights and was expanded further in 2003. Construction of an additional fourth CDG terminal was considered in 2020, but these plans were later shelved because of the global downturn in traffic following the COVID-19 pandemic.  

CDG in the news  

As with any major international airport, CDG has had its time in the spotlight for positive and negative reasons over its first 50 years.  

The early plans for the airport incorporated designs for a revolutionary mode of transport dubbed the ‘Aerotrain’. This was to be a single-carriage rail-mounted hovertrain that would connect the airport with the city of Paris.  

Uniquely, the Aerotrain was to be propelled by a single Pratt & Whitney JT8D jet engine mounted on the roof of the vehicle, as used on Boeing 727s and 737s at the time. However, although two prototypes were built and tested using a turboprop engine, the concept was never developed further, and the project was dropped in 1974.   

It also became apparent soon after its opening that the new airport was prone to fog. To combat this issue, the airport devised a revolutionary new method of fog dispersal using a series of Mistral fighter jet engines dispersed along the threshold and touchdown zones of one of the runways.  

The concept used the heat produced by the engines to vaporize the fog to assist landing aircraft in poor visibility conditions.  However, the enormous consumption of costly jet fuel soon put a stop to the scheme.    

In 1976, CDG became just one of just two airports worldwide to act as a base for the only supersonic airliner in service, the Anglo-French Concorde. On January 21, 1976, at 1140, the first two such aircraft to enter commercial service took off simultaneously from London-Heathrow and CDG. A British Airways Concorde departed London for New York, while the first Air France example set off for Rio de Janeiro.

Concorde became a regular sight at CDG over the years and was used on regular Air France transatlantic supersonic services to New York-JFK. 

However, on July 25, 2000, an Air France Concorde caught fire on take-off from CDG while setting off on a special round-the-world charter flight carrying US tourists. The aircraft, unable to sustain flight given the severity of the fire and a subsequent loss of engine power, crashed into a hotel in the village of Gonesse close to CDG, killing all 109 passengers and crew, plus four people on the ground.  

Concorde was grounded for months while the accident was investigated. Although the iconic airliner briefly returned to service, the world’s 14-strong Concorde fleet was eventually retired in 2003.  

In May 2004, the partial collapse of Terminal 2E at the airport hit the international news headlines. A major roof collapse had killed four people, rendering the terminal unusable for several years while it was reconstructed. The building eventually reopened in 2008.  

One final CDG story with which readers may be familiar is that of Mehran Karimi Nasseri, who ‘lived’ in Terminal 1 at CDG for 18 years between 1988 and 2006.  

Having fled Iran but refused entry to the UK, Nasseri remained in a diplomatic no man’s land and resided within the recesses of Terminal 1 for many years. Although offered asylum by both France and Belgium during that time, he remained at CDG until he was taken unwell and hospitalized in 2006.  

Having undergone medical treatment and seemingly recovered, Nasseri was re-housed by the French authorities. However, shortly afterward, he returned to live at the airport on his own volition until November 12, 2006, when he passed away within the confines of his adopted home of Terminal 1.  

Nasseri’s remarkable story inspired the 2004 film ‘The Terminal’ starring Tom Hanks, although the basic facts of the story were altered to feature an Eastern European individual living in the confines of New York-JFK Airport.  

Conclusion 

All three Paris airports remain operational today. While CDG has become the primary airport serving the Paris region, Orly still handles significant numbers of domestic, regional, and European flights, handling 32 million passengers in 2023.  

Le Bourget is now only open to business traffic only and handles large numbers of corporate jets annually. It is also the home to the bi-annual Paris Air Show, next due in June 2025. 

In contrast to other major airports both within Europe and beyond, at just 50 years old, CDG is relatively young. However, despite this, since its opening in March 1974, it has established itself as Europe’s third busiest international airport behind Istanbul-Ataturk Airport (IST) and London-Heathrow Airport (LHR).  

In July 2024, the airport handled 6.6 million passengers, up 1.4% over the same month in 2023. In August 2024, almost 43,000 flights operated from the airport, serving 628 routes to 108 countries. The airport currently has a portfolio of 169 operating carriers serving its two main terminals.   

There is little doubt with the foresight of those involved in its design over fifty years ago, CDG is well placed to continue growing in the future and handling increasing numbers of passengers and flights – a strategy that modern-day airport developers should take heed of as demand for air travel continues to soar in the modern age.     

The aircraft in question certainly looked the part, but it didn’t come out of a museum or some heritage flight formation, nor had it traveled through time. 

It was, in fact, a newly built plane.   

The Junkers A50 Heritage has, in fact, been designed to recreate, to the smallest detail, the look and feel of the aircraft of that era, albeit with modern engines and materials.  

But didn’t Junkers go out of business many, many decades ago?  

This legendary, century-old, German aviation brand is, actually, staging a remarkable comeback and it is doing so from rather unexpected quarters: from the other side of the Atlantic and by the hand of a luggage magnate.  

But to get the full picture, we must, first, take a step back in time.  

One of the towering characters of the early years of aviation was German aviation pioneer Hugo Junkers (1859-1935).  

Junkers, whose surname has since become synonymous with iconic aircraft, started making planes for the Kaiser’s army during the First World War. After the war, he perfected his designs and went on to produce some of the most technologically advanced aircraft of the inter-war years. 

One of them was the aforementioned Junkers A50 Junior sports plane, first launched in 1929. Another was the F13, an all-metal, cantilever-wing monoplane, which, despite being launched as early as 1919, already anticipated the shapes and lines of modern aircraft.  

But perhaps Junkers’ best-known design was the versatile tri-engine Ju-52 aircraft, which first flew in 1930 and was used extensively as an airliner and as a military transport aircraft in the 1930s and throughout the Second World War.  

One common and easily identifiable element that all these aircraft had in common was the corrugated duralumin (a type of aluminum-copper alloy) fuselage, which gave them a truly distinctive look.   

Interestingly, corrugated aluminum surfaces are also a signature trait of the RIMOWA upmarket luggage brand, also from Germany. This is not by coincidence.  

On its website, RIMOWA explains how its characteristic groovy suitcases, which first appeared in 1950, are, in fact, inspired by the Junkers designs.  

It is at this point that German businessman Dieter Morszeck enters the story.  

Morszeck, who used to be the majority owner of RIMOWA until he sold the business to French luxury conglomerate LVMH in 2016 for €640 million, has been investing, for a number of years, in the revival of the historical aircraft maker.  

To be fair, Morszeck is not alone in recognizing the potential of the Junkers brand.  

In 2007, for example, another German firm launched a line of aviation-inspired, Junkers-branded watches.  

However, the project Morszeck embarked on is on an entirely different scale: to restart production of some of Junkers’ most iconic aircraft types.  

The first of these to make a comeback was also one of Junkers’ earliest designs, the F13.     

Under Morszeck’s patronage and following the original blueprints, a team of specialists, engineers, and craftsmen built a flyable replica of the iconic aircraft from scratch. It was identical to the historical one in appearance, but it was built using modern materials and techniques. This new Junkers F13 aircraft flew for the first time in Switzerland in 2016.  

If the F13 could be brought back to life and produced in small batches, why not do the same with other larger Junkers models?   

Morszeck set up a firm in Germany, Junkers Aircraft GmbH, precisely with this goal in mind.  

The new Junkers company even devised plans to create a modernized version of the venerable Ju-52 airliner and transport aircraft, which never fully disappeared. In fact, a handful of them are still in use for panoramic flights, and even Lufthansa kept one in its fleet until 2019! 

And while little has been heard of this project in the last couple of years, other classic aircraft remakes have already become a reality.  

To do this, Morszeck first contacted a US company with extensive experience in producing vintage aircraft with a modern twist on a serial basis. 

Junkers’ new American life  

Since the early 1980s, WACO Classic Aircraft Corporation, based in Battle Creek, Michigan, has established a niche in the US general aviation market by reviving some of the most storied aerospace brands in the world. 

In fact, the company takes its name from another famed manufacturer from the 1920s. 

During the interwar period, the Weaver Aircraft Company, later known as “Waco,” emerged as a significant player in the US aircraft industry. At its peak, Waco secured up to 40% of the market share for specific types of light aircraft. 

However, despite having been a major supplier to the US military during the Second World War (Waco gliders played a major role during D-Day and Operation Market Garden), the manufacturer’s ascendancy was short-lived, and the company went out of business shortly after the war.  

Several attempts were made to revive the brand during the 1960s and 70s, but it was not until the 1980s that the firm that later became WACO Classic Aircraft began producing a modernized version of the popular 1920s Waco YMF biplane. It later added a remake of another classic, the 1930s Great Lakes biplane.  

Morszeck approached WACO to explore the possibility of restarting the production of vintage Junkers aircraft. In 2018, it acquired the US manufacturer and integrated it into the Dimor Group.   

As a result of this, WACO has started a small serial production of the Junkers A50 Junior and two derivatives of it, the Junkers A50 Junior Heritage and the Junkers A60.  

While all three share some commonalities, such as the groovy fuselage so typical of the original Junkers aircraft and a Galaxy ballistic parachute rescue system, the latter two present some interesting modifications.  

The A50 Heritage, for instance, is similar to the regular A50 Junior, but it has been modified to intentionally provide a more “retro” flying experience. 

The Heritage version features a 7-cylinder radial engine instead of the A50 Junior four-cylinder Rotax fuel-injected engine, a wooden propeller, and analog instruments instead of the Garmin avionics suite.   

The Junkers A60, in turn, is a more modern take on the A50 concept. It is still pretty similar in general conception and aesthetics but with some more prominent modern features, such as a closed cockpit, which, unlike the vintage designs, allows for side-by-side seating.  

The original A50 Junior was designed with the idea that thousands of them could be built at relatively affordable prices. However, only 69 of them were actually built, with 3 of them being preserved in museums. Currently, WACO has the capacity to build five or six units of each aircraft type per year, nevertheless the firm intends to make this historic brand a household name in aviation circles again. 

However, with a retail price of US$230,000 to 299,000 (for the Heritage version), this modern Junkers aircraft company is ready to fulfill Hugo Junkers’ vision of the A50 Junior as a “people’s plane”. 

Originally a town in the county of Surrey, Croydon was officially swallowed up by the London sprawl in 1965. Before then, its proximity to the capital put it in a perfect position to host the UK’s first major international airport. 

But how was it that an unassuming town in the English countryside was able to become the central link between Britain and the international world – and having reached the top, why did it ultimately fall from grace to be surpassed by the beast that is London-Heathrow Airport (LHR)?

Humble beginnings 

Croydon Airport began life as in 1915 as Beddington Aerodrome, a World War One airfield originally developed for emergency military aircraft landings but later adapted to counter German Zeppelin airship raids. 

According to the Historic Croydon Airport website, which is run by the charity Historic Croydon Airport Trust, Beddington was one of ten aerodromes scattered around London, including Hounslow and Biggin Hill.  

As World War I went on, Beddington Aerodrome played an increasingly prominent role, with the establishment of a new Royal Flying Corp Squadron being based there as part of the UK’s defense.  

After the War ended, the aerodrome became a training center for the Royal Air Force (RAF), with even the future King George VI learning to fly there.  

Hounslow Aerodrome

Croydon Airport may have become the first major international airport, but the honor of witnessing the UK’s first international commercial flight from the UK was bestowed on Hounslow Aerodrome.  

Hounslow Aerodrome was temporarily operational from 1914 until 1920, but the first reported landing at Hounslow Heath, which had a long-established military heritage, was in 1909.  

Throughout World War One, Hounslow played a prominent position in the training of pilots, defending attacks from Zeppelin airships and readying flight squadrons for battles over Europe.  

After the war ended, in 1919 Hounslow Aerodrome saw the first domestic commercial flights in the UK. 

The first flight arrived from Bristol and the first documented departure take off flew to Lympne Airport, but Hounslow’s major triumph came on July 14, 1919, when a Caudron aircraft arrived from Paris Airport-Le Bourget (LBG).  

However, any hopes of long-term glory were dashed when Croydon Airport was selected to become the UK base for future commercial flights instead. 

Establishing Croydon Airport 

Croydon Airport began operating as London Terminal Aerodrome on March 29, 1920, establishing itself as the UK center for flights carrying passengers, mail and freight.  

According to the Historic Croydon Airport site, newly established airlines such as Aircraft Transport and Travel (A, T &T) and Instone Air Line moved operations to Croydon when it opened, with Handley Page following suit in 1921.  

The French airline Compagnie des Messageries Aeriennes  launched a service from Paris on the very same day that Croydon first welcomed commercial services. Other early passenger services at Croydon Airport included routes to Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Berlin. 

In 1920, Croydon achieved one of its many aviation world firsts when it introduced air traffic control and the aerodrome control tower. 

The nascent British aviation industry had been searching for a way to organize aircraft arrivals and departures and found the solution in a 15-foot wooden tower with windows on all sides.  

From this high viewpoint, air traffic controllers provided pilots with information about air traffic and weather conditions and used maps, pins and flags to record movements. 

The reign of Croydon Airport 

Through the early 1920s, routes to distant lands began to multiply, with new services established at Croydon Airport to Brussels, Cologne, Zurich and Basel, to name but a few.  

The formation of Imperial Airways, created by combining several of Britain’s early airlines, was instrumental in the growth of Croydon Airport. 

According to Historic Croydon Airport, in February 1923 the Hambling Committee recommended that three British airlines should be merged to help develop the UK aviation industry, which was struggling to compete with its European rivals.   

The newly combined airline, subsidized by the UK government, boasted a 15-aircraft fleet that included De Havilland DH.34s, Handley Page W.8bs and Supermarine Sea Eagles from British Marine Air Navigation. 

With no natural British competition, Imperial Airway expanded without much struggle, Eventually, it enabled Croydon Airport to connect with destinations as far away as India and Australia.  

Sadly, in December 1924, an Imperial Airways De Havilland DH.34 crashed, resulting in the deaths of all eight people on board and a subsequent public inquiry. 

The report into the inquiry, released on February 10, 1925, concluded that the crash was caused by an unknown mechanical defect, plus a subsequent stall aboard the aircraft during an attempted emergency landing. 

Following the inquiry’s conclusion, the Croydon Aerodrome Extension Act 1925, initiating the expansion, redevelopment and modernization of the airport.  

Croydon Airport’s redevelopment began in 1926, including plans for what would eventually become the world’s first purpose-built airport terminal. 

The birth of the modern terminal 

We had a very full Open Day on Sunday 4th February and thank you to everyone who came along. If you were hoping to come for one of our tours, we would encourage you to watch our social media pages and website for our next Open Day will occur on March 3rd. pic.twitter.com/5sY8TguBlL

— Historic Croydon Airport (@CroydonAirport) February 6, 2024

On January 30, 1928, the new airport terminal was officially opened. The new look Croydon Airport included extended runways and a 50 feet tall control tower, then the largest in the world. 

Some of the features introduced at the new terminal have become standard today, but were considered significant innovations at the time. 

A booking hall was introduced for the processing of passengers, including check-in desks and sections for luggage to be weighed.  

There was even an arrival and departures board featuring multiple clocks positioned on a large pillar, indicating when flights would be landing or taking off.  

The booking hall then linked through to immigration and security checks where passengers would be quizzed by the Criminal Investigation Department, immigration representatives and even medical staff.  

Croydon Airport also introduced the idea of separating passengers from those departing to those arriving , therefore reducing congestion and increasing efficiency. 

World War II 

The 1930s saw passenger numbers surge at Croydon, with 44,000 using the airport in 1931 and 120,000 just four years later in 1935. 

According to Historic Croydon Airport, in 1935 Croydon Airport was processing 84% of all the UK’s air cargo and 49% of all passengers within the country. 

The route between Croydon and Paris became the busiest in the world, and in 1937 a little-known carrier called British Airways began operating European flights from the airport. 

In November 1938, the British government decided to combine British Airways and Imperial Airways to form British Overseas Airways Corporation.  

However, in 1939 the boom in air travel came to an abrupt halt when the Second World War broke out in Europe.  

What had become a flourishing airport, marveled at around the world, then became part of the UK’s defense against the German Luftwaffe.  

The airport became Royal Air Force Station Croydon and it was heavily bombed on August 15, 1940, with the airfield and terminal being struck.  

During World War II, Croydon also became a hugely important transport hub for thousands of military personnel being flown in and out of Britain.  

Post-War

Following the Second World War, Croydon Airport was unable to live up to its former glory as competitor travel hubs dotted around the UK began snapping at its heels.  

An airfield established in 1929, next to a small village outside London called Heathrow, had been developed in 1944 to service long-distance aircraft during the war. When hostilities ended, though, the government decided to continue the site’s development for civil aviation. Consequently, London Airport was opened in 1946.  

Though Croydon Airport continued to serve regional routes until 1959, after the Second World War it became clear that it could not develop for a new generation of travel due to a lack of space for longer runways, leaving the perfect opening for Heathrow in Hounslow. 

In 1966, as London Airport continued to expand and other commercial airports appeared around the capital, the name was changed to the more familiar ‘London Heathrow’. 

Today, Heathrow continues to thrive. In August 2024, the airport announced that over eight million passengers passed through during the previous month, with numbers surpassing 1.8m passengers in one week for the first time.  

Croydon Airport, which officially closed in 1959, can still be seen today on special open days, giving visitors the chance to experience the remnants of what was once the UK’s first major international airport and a pioneer in how we all still travel today.  

Unable to turn, climb, or descend the aircraft using conventional flight control inputs and effectively left to fly an unflyable airplane, the crew were forced to rely on engine power alone to find and reach a suitable airfield and attempt a landing. With 296 passengers and crew onboard that day, the stakes could not have been higher.

And yet, with professional calmness and supreme skill, working as a team in the most desperate of situations, the crew pulled off the impossible and landed the aircraft. While fatalities resulted, the majority of those onboard survived. This is the remarkable story of United Airlines Flight 232 –  the miracle of Sioux City.     

Background to Flight 232

On July 19, 1989, a United Airlines DC-10 was tasked with operating flight number UA232 on a routine scheduled passenger service from Denver-Stapleton International Airport (DEN) to Chicago-O’Hare Airport (ORD), continuing on to Philadelphia Airport (PHL).

The aircraft assigned to operate Flight 232 was one of the company’s 55 McDonnell Douglas DC-10s, registered as N1819U. The plane had been delivered new to United in 1971 and had since accumulated a total of 43,401 hours and 16,997 cycles (take-offs and landings) during its 18-year career.

The aircraft was powered by three General Electric CF6 turbofan engines, with one mounted under each wing and a third located above the rear fuselage in the base of the tail.

N1819U carried United’s then-current livery, which featured horizontal layered orange, red, and blue cheatlines along the fuselage, with the company’s ‘tulip U’ logo displayed on the tail in the same colors.  

Crew details

The flight crew of Flight 232 consisted of a captain, a first officer, and a flight engineer, accompanied by eight flight attendants.

The captain was 57-year-old Albert ‘Al’ Haynes. Haynes had been employed by United since February 1956 and had accrued 29,967 hours of flight time, 7,190 hours of which had been on the DC-10.

The first officer was Bill Records, 48. He had been flying for United since 1969. The flight engineer was Dudley Dvorak, 51, who had been hired by United in 1986. The crew, who had flown together six times in the previous 90 days, had enjoyed a 22-hour layover in Denver before the departure of Flight 232.

Also onboard that day was an off-duty United training captain, Dennis ‘Denny’ Fitch, 46, who had flown for United since 1968. Fitch had over 23,000 flying hours in his logbook, of which around 3,000 were on the DC-10.  

Departure of Flight 232

All closed up and ready for departure on a fine summer’s day, Flight 232 departed Denver at 14:09 local time for the first leg of its journey to Chicago.

285 passengers and 11 crew members were on board the flight that day. The take-off and the en-route climb to the planned cruising altitude of 37,000ft (11,280m) was uneventful, with the first officer as the flying pilot.

Catastrophic failure of engine #2

At 15:16, around an hour and seven minutes after departure from Denver, the flight crew noticed a loud bang from the aircraft, likened to an explosion. They subsequently experienced severe airframe vibration and set out to discover the cause. On scanning the engine instruments, it quickly became apparent that the number two tail-mounted engine had failed.    

Captain Haynes ran through the emergency engine shutdown checklist with the First Officer Records while the flight engineer continued to scan his instrument panel. On checking the hydraulic fluid pressure and quantity gauges, he noticed that they all read zero.  

The primary flight controls on the DC-10 (ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers) were all operated by hydraulic pressure and the first officer was quick to realize that his controls were unresponsive to his inputs. The plane entered a descending right-hand turn.

Haynes took the controls and, noting the same control issues, reduced thrust on the number one engine, which resulted in the aircraft rolling out in a wings-level attitude, giving the crew critical time to evaluate the dire situation Flight 232 was facing.

Decision to divert

Four minutes later, at 15:20, the crew called air traffic controllers in Minneapolis and requested a diversion to their nearest available airport. Following further discussion and analysis of the flight’s route, Flight 232 was given instructions to divert to Sioux City Gateway Airport (SUX) in Iowa.  

It was at this point that Denny Fitch, the off-duty training captain seated in the first-class cabin, offered his assistance and entered the flight deck of N1819U at 15:29. His decision to do so would prove to be a turning point in the handling of the incident.

Flying the unflyable airplane

Having quickly assessed the state of the aircraft’s wings from the passenger cabin, Fitch reported that there was no movement from any of the flight control surfaces on the wings. Haynes asked that Fitch assume control of the engine throttles, by kneeling between the two forward-facing pilot seats. This was to free up Haynes and Records to hold their control columns while they attempted to regain some control of the airplane.

Fitch operated the engine throttle levers and used differential engine power settings to control the aircraft’s pitch and roll. He reported that the plane displayed an ongoing tenancy to bank to the right and manipulated the two remaining engine throttles (numbers one and three) with both hands to control the aircraft’s attitude.

At 15:42, the flight engineer was dispatched from the flight deck to perform an inspection at the back of the cabin. Upon his return, he reported that both right-hand and left-hand rear stabilizers had sustained damage.

Following this, the crew began dumping fuel to lower the landing weight of the aircraft and, as the landing gear lowering procedure was reliant on hydraulic pressure, the gear had to be lowered using the manual alternative extension procedure.

Fitch reduced the power settings as the aircraft limped its way toward the designated diversion airfield at Sioux City. He used the first officer’s airspeed indicator and visual cues out of the cockpit windows to determine the flight path of the plane and the need for any power changes.

The approach to Sioux City

With the aircraft at a range of about nine miles from touchdown at Sioux City, the crew made visual contact with the airport. Having initially been given the option to land on runway 31, which was 8,999ft (2,743m) in length, the crew advised that, as they were unable to turn the aircraft in the distance remaining towards that runway orientation, they were instead committed to land on runway 22, which was just 6,600ft (2,012m) long. 

With the landing gear down but without the use of the wing leading-edge slats and trailing-edge flaps, there was little the crew could do to control the stricken aircraft’s approach speed, other than through variable engine power settings.

During the final approach, Haynes noted a high sink rate alarm from the aircraft’s ground proximity warning syst em (GPWS). The subsequent investigation discovered that in the last 20 seconds prior to touchdown, the airspeed averaged 215 knots (247 mph/395 kph) while the sink rate was 1,620ft (493m) per minute – both excessive for the DC-10.

Fitch continued to make small manipulations of the engine controls as the aircraft crossed the runway threshold, still maintaining a straight and level attitude but at a landing speed much higher than normal.

Fitch later told investigators that he thought the airplane was “fairly well aligned with the runway during the latter stages of the approach and that they would reach the runway”.

Right before touchdown, at around 100ft above the runway, the right wing suddenly and violently dropped, and the aircraft’s nose pitched down. Fitch added power just before touchdown to soften the landing as the aircraft’s right main gear made contact with the runway surface.

Touchdown

At 16:00 the airplane touched down on the runway threshold to the left of the centerline. First ground contact was made by the righthand wing tip, followed by the right main landing gear.

Due to the late wing drop, the airplane slewed to the right of the runway and rolled over to an inverted position. Witnesses, plus amateur camera footage taken at the time of the landing, saw the plane land at high speed before cartwheeling over to the right and igniting as a post-crash fire ripped through the wreckage. The aircraft eventually came to rest to the right of runway 22 after the intersection with runway 17/35.

Note: The video below contains footage that some readers may find distressing to watch.

With the airport’s fire and rescue services on standby as the plane landed, firefighting operations began immediately.

The crash landing resulted in the loss of 111 passengers who were fatally injured either from the impact or from the effects of the post-crash fire. There were also 47 passengers and crew seriously injured with 125 others receiving minor injuries. 13 occupants onboard the plane were uninjured. One person later died as a result of injuries sustained during the landing. 

All four flight crew members escaped with their lives, along with 62% of all those onboard Flight 232. 

Damage to the aircraft

Amateur photos taken as N1819U approached Sioux City showed parts of the plane’s number two engine cowling and its fuselage tail cone were both missing. A subsequent post-crash examination of the wreckage revealed that components of the engine’s forward fan rotor had separated from the engine in flight and pierced the engine cowling, impacting the horizontal stabilizers and rear fuselage empennage. 

The airplane’s right wing fell apart upon impact with the ground, while the rest of the aircraft broke up as it overturned down the runway. The fuselage center section, with much of the left wing still attached, came to rest in a cornfield to the right of runway 22, The cockpit separated early on in the impact sequence and came to rest at the edge of runway 17/35.

The largely intact tail section continued down runway 22 and came to rest on an adjacent taxiway, while the two wing-mounted engines both separated during the landing.

Investigation and findings

Following the accident, the National Transport Safety Bureau (NTSB) dispatched a team to Sioux City to begin gathering evidence and determine the series of events that had caused the crash landing of Flight 232.  

Along with taking photos and conducting a full analysis of the landing sequence and subsequent breakup of the aircraft, the investigators also interviewed hundreds of witnesses, including the flight crew, passengers, and others on the ground who saw the aircraft in its final stages of flight and landing.

Incredibly, in mid-October 1989, around three months after the accident, two major sections of the engine number two fan disk with attached blade pieces were found in a corn field near the town of Alta in Iowa, some 66 miles (106km) from Sioux City Gateway Airport.

Metallurgical analysis of these parts carried out by the NTSB found that fatigue cracks in the components had fractured, causing the fan disk to separate from the drive shaft at high speed. The fractured parts spun through the engine casing and cowling and departed the aircraft, with smaller parts piercing the horizontal stabilizer on both sides and the rear fuselage.   

With each of the three hydraulic syst ems congregated around this section of the aircraft, each sustained high-energy impact damage from fast-moving engine parts, causing the sudden and catastrophic loss of all hydraulic fluid from each of the syst ems. This in turn led to the crew’s loss of ability to manipulate the flight controls and fly the airplane in the conventional manner.

Fitch subsequently described the chances of losing all three hydraulic syst ems at once as “one in a billion”. 

NTSB findings

On November 1, 1990, a year and three months after the accident, the NTSB published its final report on Flight 232.

The investigation found that deficiencies in United Airlines engine component maintenance and inspection procedures had meant that the fatigue cracks in the engine number two fan disk had long gone undetected and unrectified.

Over time, with the aircraft performing additional cycles throughout, these cracks expanded and eventually sheared, causing the detachment of the fan disk and leading to the uncontained engine failure. The components that sheared away exited the engine cowling and ruptured the hydraulic lines of the aircraft, leading to the loss of flight control authority.

The report concluded: “The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the inadequate consideration given to human factors limitations in the inspection and quality control procedures used by United Airlines’ engine overhaul facility which resulted in the failure to detect a fatigue crack originating from a previously undetected metallurgical defect located in a critical area of the stage one fan disk that was manufactured by General Electric Aircraft Engines.”

“The subsequent catastrophic disintegration of the disk resulted in the liberation of debris in a pattern of distribution and with energy levels that exceeded the level of protection provided by design features of the hydraulic syst ems that operate the DC-10’s flight controls.”

What happened to the crew of Flight 232?

Although 111 of those onboard lost their lives when Flight 232 crash-landed, 185 survived. This achievement was seen as a testament to the heroic airmanship of Captain Haynes and the crew of Flight 232, plus the efforts of Denny Fitch, the off-duty pilot who controlled the engine power levers as the aircraft struggled toward Sioux City.

While the plane had been rendered virtually unflyable through the loss of all three hydraulic syst ems, the stoic crew, while facing immense pressure in an unprecedented situation, still managed to fly the plane and get it on the ground, saving the lives of 185 people.

Captain Haynes continued his flying career with United Airlines after the incident involving Flight 232. He eventually died in August 2019 after a short illness, just six days before his 88th birthday. Haynes always maintained his public praise for the cabin crew who helped to evacuate so many passengers after the plane had landed. 

Captain Denny Fitch also continued to fly with United, ultimately dying of brain cancer in May 2012. Like the rest of the crew, Fitch always rejected claims that the group were heroes, insisting they were all just doing their jobs as pilots.

In an interview some years after the events of Flight 232, Fitch also alluded to the guilt he and his pilot colleagues had faced through not being able to save everyone onboard the aircraft.

“I was 46 years old the day I walked into that cockpit,” he said. “I had the world ahead of me. I was a captain of a major US airline. I had a beautiful healthy family, a loving wife, and a great future. And at 4 o’clock, I’m trying to stay alive.”

“To find out 112 people didn’t make it, that just about destroyed me. I would have given my life for any of them.” 

Pan Am was seen as the pinnacle of international air travel during the inter-war and post-war years, with their famous ‘Clipper’ flying boats becoming synonymous with offering a high-class of intercontinental air travel. The airline later became the pioneer of the jet age, introducing the Boeing 707 in the 1960s and the Boeing 747 ‘jumbo jet’ in the 1970s.  

Pan Am later succumbed to increased competition on many of its routes. It was declared bankrupt in 1991, with two subsequent attempts at reviving the airline also ending in failure.    

Having paid to use the Pan Am brand and logo under license, Centurion Travel has put a multi-city excursion on sale that spans cities on both sides of the Atlantic, running from June 27 until July 9, 2025. Tickets for the two-week odyssey cost $65,500 for a single person traveling on their own. This includes accommodation, travel, and most meals, according to Centurion’s website.   

The trip will start in New York and initially head to Bermuda – a regular stopping point for Pan Am Clippers. From there the tour continues to Lisbon in Portugal followed by a stop in Marseille in France. After that, the trip then takes a short hop to London, a city that always featured heavily in Pan Am’s schedules throughout its lifespan. Indeed, it was London that first received a Pan Am Boeing 747, entering service with the carrier in 1970.    

Lastly, before making its way back to New York, the aircraft continues to Foynes on the west coast of Ireland, a regular stopping point for Pan Am Clipper flying boats once they had crossed the Atlantic from the US back in the day. The luxuriously appointed 757 finally returns to New York on July 9, 2025, bringing the Pan Am revival experience to a close. 

The venture is being led by Craig Carter, the current CEO of Pan American World Airways LLC, a US-based company that owns the rights to the original Pan Am logo and brand.  

“As we are becoming more accustomed to travel being a commodity, usually a way to get from point A to point B at the most economical price, we offer a reminder of the Golden Age of travel,” Centurion’s website states. “A time when the travel itself was a glamorous experience, and when the journey was as important and special as the destination.” 

There has been no official announcement from Centurion Travel regarding the source of the Boeing 757-200 that is to be used for the operation. Equally, no further announcement has been made as to whether the aircraft will wear any version of the Pan Am livery for the duration of the trip. It is also a striking choice of aircraft type for the mission, as Pan Am never actually operated the type during any of the three iterations of the airline. 

While US charter airline New Pacific Airlines, with its fleet of three 757-200s, has been rumored to be the carrier selected to operate the trip, no confirmation has yet been made by either Centurion or the airline itself.  

What made this accident particularly newsworthy was not the aircraft type, nor the location in which it happened, but the pilot flying the aircraft that day – none other than King Charles III (then Charles, Prince of Wales), the current monarch of the United Kingdom.  

AeroTime takes a closer look at the accident itself, the repercussions arising from it, and where the aircraft involved ended up following its royal mishap in 1994. 

Background to the accident 

It was June 29, 1994, at around 11:50 on the Scottish island of Islay, located around 150 miles west of Glasgow in the collection of islands known as the Inner Hebrides. Islay Airport (ILY) has a primary tarmac runway 13/31 with a total length of 1,545m (5,069ft) – relatively short compared to the major Scottish airports of Aberdeen (ABZ), Glasgow (GLA), Edinburgh (EDI), and Inverness (INV), yet still capable of handling both propellor and jet aircraft. 

Charles was traveling to the island for several local engagements on one of the two British Aerospace 146-100s (referred to by the RAF as a ‘146 CC2’) operated by 32 Squadron of the RAF, also known as ‘The Royal Squadron’. Tasked with flying members of the UK royal family to public and private engagements both within the UK and abroad, the small red, white, and black quadjets were a regular sight at airports across the UK and Europe at the time.   

The aircraft involved in the accident, carrying RAF tail number ZE700, was tasked with transporting Charles that day from earlier engagements in Aberdeen on the mainland. As a holder of a UK Pilots’ Licence himself, Charles was known to regularly fly himself and often took the controls of the Royal Flight aircraft when traveling on them to meetings or engagements.  

On the day in question, he occupied the captain’s (left-hand) seat in the flight deck of the 146 as the pilot flying (‘PF’), with the hugely experienced Squadron Leader Graham Laurie acting as the co-pilot (or pilot monitoring ‘PM’) in the right-hand seat. 

The landing attempt at Islay 

With the weather conditions at Islay Airport overcast, with gusty winds, but generally dry, the aircraft made its approach to the airport from the north intending to perform a full-stop landing.     

The landing was to be made on runway 13, which had a published landing distance available (LDA) of 1,245 m (4,083 ft). At the time of the landing attempt, the wind was blowing at 250 degrees at 20 knots (23mph/37kph), giving a tailwind component down the runway of 12 knots (14mph/23kph).   

The Board of Inquiry later described the 146’s approach to the runway be “unstable” and above the desired approach path. Additionally, the aircraft’s approach speed was well in excess of the prescribed speed given the weather conditions and runway length.  

The aircraft’s speed across the threshold was reported as 32 knots (37 mph/60 kph) higher than it should have been at that critical point. The excessive speed, when combined with the high approach and the tailwind component led to the aircraft touching down well down the runway, with only around 784 meters (2,571 ft) remaining for the roll-out and deceleration.  

The aircraft touched down on its nose landing gear (NLG) first, and ‘wheelbarrowed’ – where the main landing gear (MLG) is delayed from making contact with the runway surface due to the high speed of the air passing over the wing continuing to produce lift. The failure of the MLG to make firm contact with the tarmac delayed the activation of the weight-on-wheels switches and hence the deployment of the lift spoilers and the automatic selection of ground idle power from the aircraft’s four engines. 

Additionally, investigators found the MLG wheel brakes were applied before the anti-skid protection system’s full activation which caused both inboard main wheels to lock and the failure of both tires. The weight-on-wheel switches eventually activated with just 509m (1,669ft) of the runway remaining.  

Unable to stop in the distance remaining, hampered by the loss of braking ability on two main tires and the excessive speed brought about by the delayed activation of the spoilers, the aircraft ran off the end of the runway and into a ditch. The plane was substantially damaged as a result.  

The airport fire and rescue service attended the scene while Charles was quickly whisked away in his motorcade to continue with his itinerary, leaving the other crew to deal with the fallout from the accident.   

Subsequent investigation 

As the accident involved a military rather than a civilian aircraft, it was an RAF Board of Inquiry that investigated the events leading up to the botched landing and the subsequent overrun.   

It was reported, following the conclusion of the investigation, that the Board found the captain (Charles) to be “negligent in that he failed to intervene [with positive control inputs] when the aircraft performance and limitations were exceeded in the final stages of the flight”. The navigator (Squadron Leader Laurie) was also found negligent for “failing to advise the captain of the tailwind component and to draw his attention to the inaccurate approach parameters.” 

“It was not quite a crash,” The Herald Scotland newspaper quoted Charles as saying after the accident.  “We went off the end of the runway. It’s not something I recommend happening all the time, but unfortunately, it did,” he added.   

“With hindsight, which is a wonderful thing, I should have got him to overshoot and try a different approach, but I told him to land, so he did exactly what he was told to do,” said Squadron Leader Laurie, speaking to The People newspaper in an interview some months later. 

The damage caused to ZE700 during the landing and overrun was reported to have cost UK taxpayers well over £1 million ($1.27m at current exchange rates) to repair. The aircraft returned to flying duties with 32 Squadron following extensive repairs and was finally retired in 2022 (see below).    

Aviation experts still consider the landing to technically be classified as an accident rather than an incident, with some even referring to it as a ‘crash’, given the extent of the damage suffered by the aircraft. 

King Charles’ flying career  

Charles first became actively involved in flying as a young student at Cambridge University in the UK. Charles received his basic flight training with the University Air Squadron (UAS) based at Cambridge Airport and made his first flight in January 1969 flying a De Havilland Chipmunk nicknamed the “Red Dragon”.  

This low-wing single-engine trainer held a pilot and their instructor in a tandem configuration (one sitting behind the other).   

During his time in the UAS, Charles completed 101 flights in the aircraft while under the supervision of UAS flight instructor Squadron Leader Philip Pinney. Charles, then the Prince of Wales, was in his early 20s at the time. By March 1969, Charles had successfully obtained his pilot’s license.  

After completing his undergraduate degree in archaeology and history at Cambridge University in 1970, Charles joined the RAF in 1971. In fact, according to his official website, Charles flew himself to the training facility in Cranwell, Lincolnshire. After earning his coveted RAF ‘wings’, Charles went on to attend the Royal Naval College. He then trained as a helicopter pilot and joined a Royal Naval Air Squadron. His official naval military service ended in 1976. 

While Charles served in both the RAF and Royal Navy, he still had outside engagements to keep up with as a British royal. Interestingly, Charles would often fly himself to such events, operating aircraft belonging to 32 Royal Squadron. He regularly flew planes as part of the Royal Squadron up through the mid-1990s. 

However, the accident in Islay was to change all that. Having flown for over two decades, in 1995 Charles decided to hand in his wings, give up his pilot’s license, and call a halt to his flying days. Since that day in Islay, Charles has left the flying duties to others, preferring to be a passenger rather than the pilot on flights he now undertakes while performing both public and private duties. 

Where is ZE700 now? 

The aircraft involved in the Islay accident, ZE700, returned to active service with 32 Squadron several months after its recovery and repair. It continued to fly members of the UK Royal Family (including Charles), along with senior government ministers and Ministry of Defence personnel for another 27 years until finally being retired in 2022. 

The two 146 CC2s flown by the RAF were replaced by modern Dassault 900LX jets which were more sustainable thanks to their smaller engines, which resulted in a reduction in fuel burn and emissions. They also offered a much longer range than the 146s could manage.  

On March 16, 2022, ZE700 was ferried from its base to the former RAF airfield of St Athan Airport (DGX) near Cardiff in Wales. During its final flight, the aircraft carried out several flypasts at key airports and airfields that were key to the history of the aircraft including RAF Brize Norton, Glasgow Prestwick Airport, and Warton Aerodrome, a key British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) site. 

Once safely at St Athan, the plane took up residency at the South Wales Aviation Museum (SWAM). Having been donated to the Museum by the RAF, the aircraft was stripped of its specialist electronic equipment before it was formally handed over to the museum operators.      

The aircraft was named after Group Captain Lionel Rees VC, a Welsh fighter pilot from Caernarfon who was awarded the Victoria Cross in the First World War. Rees was awarded Britain’s highest award for gallantry for his actions on June 1, 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme, after single-handedly taking on ten enemy aircraft. 

ZE700’s sistership and the only other 146 CC2 operated by the RAF (ZE701) was retired later that same year (2022) and now forms part of the British Airliner Collection of aircraft at the Imperial War Museum located at Duxford Airfield near Cambridge, England. 

One such example is a UK-based Catalina flying boat that carries the registration G-PBYA. 3,305 Catalinas were built during the Second World War, but this particular aircraft, which reached its 80th birthday in October 2023, is one of only ten that remain airworthy. 

Holding the honorary position as the sole remaining Catalina flying boat left in Europe, in 2024 G-PBYA (also known as ‘Miss Pick Up’ – see below) is marking 20 years on the European air show circuit. Displaying at over 20 events across Europe between May and October 2024, the plane still draws the public’s attention wherever it appears – indeed, the plane even has its own fan club, The Catalina Society, with around 700 members worldwide. 

AeroTime looks at the fascinating story behind this particular Catalina – from warbird to water bomber, and from sitting abandoned in Canada to becoming a perennial favorite on the European air show scene.       

Background to the PBY Catalina 

The PBY Catalina series of flying boats was originally conceived in the 1930s to meet an emerging US Navy requirement for a patrol-bomber flying boat. The San Diego-based aircraft manufacturer Consolidated, which had previous experience producing earlier flying boat models, presented a new design for consideration by the Navy’s top brass. 

The design, originally known as the Consolidated Model 28, featured a hull-shaped lower fuselage, with its twin piston engines mounted on the leading edge of the high wing above. The provision of stabilizer floats at the ends of each wing, which could be retracted for streamlined flight, added to the design’s efficiency.  

First flown on March 21, 1935, the new aircraft commenced service trials with the US Navy, leading to numerous design adjustments before the Navy ordered 60 examples in June 1935. The first of these, known as the PBY-1, was delivered to them in October 1936. The ‘PB’ stood for ‘patrol bomber’ while ‘Y’ was the designated letter to denote Consolidated as the manufacturer.    

By April 1939, the model had been upgraded several times. The US Navy continued to order increasing numbers of aircraft, including 50 PBY-2s and 66 PBY-3s. The last of 33 PBY-4 variants to be rolled out was fitted with amphibious landing gear for the first time, to increase the type’s versatility and enable it to operate from land-based runways.  

This new amphibious model eventually became known as the PBY-5A. However, while the PBY flying boats served the US Navy well, not least by seeing action at Pearl Harbor, they were eventually earmarked for retirement as the war in the Pacific turned in the US’s favor and replacements for the type (such as the Gruman Albatross) became available. 

The PBY-5 proved to be particularly popular with military operators outside the US (although the US Navy did eventually order 200). Its adaptability, plus its renowned ability to operate very long-range missions and 18+ hour missions without refueling, were huge selling points for the Catalina.  

Following evaluation, the UK’s Air Ministry initially ordered 50 PBY-5s, which helped to revitalize production at Consolidated. It was with this order of PBY-5s, destined for the Royal Air Force (RAF), that the aircraft was given the nickname ‘Catalina’ for the first time, named after an island off the coast of California close to San Diego and a name that even the US military went on to adopt officially.

Other air forces worldwide also placed orders for Catalinas, with the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Royal New Zealand Air Force, Netherlands Navy, and the Royal Australian Air Force leading the charge.    

The RCAF order necessitated the opening of a second production line, operated under license by Canadian Vickers at its assembly plant in Cartierville, Quebec. Notably, Catalinas produced by Canadian Vickers were given the alternative moniker of ‘Canso’ rather than Catalina. Boeing Aircraft of Canada Limited also built Catalinas at its plant in Vancouver under license from Consolidated for the US Navy, the RAF, and the RCAF.  

In all, 379 aircraft were built in Canada out of the 3,305 Catalinas built in total in the US, Canada, and even the Soviet Union. Of this total production run, 1,428 were built as amphibious examples with fully extendible/retractable landing gear, whereas the remaining 1,877 remained water-borne (although they could be towed onto land via dollies for maintenance and repair).  

In the main, the type carried on its role of maritime patrol, characterized by long, monotonous sorties without sighting land or enemy, although others were used as patrol bombers (primarily to destroy enemy submarines), reconnaissance and surveillance, coast guard duties, general cargo transport, and troop relocation missions.  

The Catalina served with distinction throughout the Second World War and was involved in many significant incidents, including the locating of the German battleship ‘Bismark’, the sighting of the Japanese invasion force heading for Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and many individual actions against U-boats and submarines. Two Victoria Crosses were awarded to RAF Coastal Command Catalina captains. In all, the RAF went on to operate around 700 Catalinas.   

The vast majority of Catalinas were scrapped after the war. However, a number found new lives in the commercial sector, mostly the amphibious examples, although many of them would never operate on water again. Their new roles varied from passenger and freight transport (Catalinas flew for both Qantas and Cathay Pacific in the post-war years), while others went into specialized roles such as aerial survey, firefighting, or aerial spraying.  

Out of the 3,305 Catalinas built in total, it is quite remarkable that only ten remain airworthy across the globe, although there are various restoration projects in various stages worldwide. Most of the surviving examples reside in the US, Canada, and a pair in Australia. G-PBYA remains the sole survivor in Europe, and what a history this aircraft has had over its 80 years of flying.    

The history of G-PBYA 

G-PBYA was originally ordered for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) as a ‘Canso A’ amphibious Catalina, based on the US Navy PBY-5A variant. The plane was built by Canadian Vickers at Cartierville, Quebec in October 1943, and was allocated the construction number CV-283 before adopting the RCAF serial 11005 (fuselage markings QT005). The aircraft entered service on October 27, 1943, initially from Bella Bella on the British Columbia coast between Vancouver and Prince Rupert, on day and night patrols to keep watch for enemy submarines.  

By mid-1944, the threat of a Japanese invasion of Western Canada had receded, so the RCAF decided to disband the Belle Bella Catalina squadron and close the station. 11005, along with its sisterships, continued in their anti-submarine role from Alliford Bay in the Queen Charlotte Islands, also in British Columbia, until this base was also disbanded on July 25, 1945. 

With the war over, 11005 was no longer required in its original capacity and it entered a period of storage until it was converted to a freighter in 1948. Subsequently, 11005 flew out of Rockcliffe, Ontario before being redeployed one last time to fly search-and-rescue missions from Sea Island, Vancouver. It was finally struck off military service on May 25, 1961, having entered storage at Vulcan, Alberta.  

The aircraft was subsequently sold to the commercial sector, having had both its bow turret and side blisters removed as part of its post-war conversion. It was at this point that the plane began a new lease of life as a fire-fighting waterbomber. Having been re-registered as CF-NJF, it joined the fleet of Kentings, an established Canadian water bomber operator, and operated in this role for many years, fighting forest fires across Canada. 

During the time, CF-NJF was also chartered to the French operator Protection Civile, based in Marseille, flying with them for several firefighting seasons during the mid-to-late 1960s. During these French deployments, the aircraft switched identities to become F-ZBAY and later on, F-ZBBD but always reverted to its Canadian marks on its return from France at the end of each summer season. 

In 1974, it joined Norcanair, a firefighting company based at Prince Albert in Saskatchewan, and later had its registration amended from CF-NJF to C-FNJF in accordance with revised Canadian commercial aircraft practice. It also took up the moniker ‘Tanker 14’, as depicted on the side of the fuselage in large numbers.

Around 1980, it was taken on by the Province of Saskatchewan which continued to use it as a water bomber, alongside other Catalinas as well as Canadair CL-215s. By the late-1990s, though, the Saskatchewan Catalinas had been disposed of, and two of them (including C-FNJF) were sent to storage in St Thomas, Ontario, their ultimate fate uncertain.  

C-FNJF escaped being scrapped and was partially reprieved when it was taken on by another commercial operator, Catalina Aero Services, based in Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. There, it was to be repurposed as a passenger-carrying aircraft for tourist flights and air safaris in Zimbabwe in southern Africa. For this purpose, the aircraft had its water tanks removed and a hydraulic under-tail integrated airstair installed, along with a 14-seat passenger interior and spectacular rear one-piece Perspex blisters for unrivaled panoramic views of the passing landscape. 

Sadly, this venture never actually got off the ground, and C-FNJF was once more put up for sale, spending some time being stored in the open where it was left to the mercy of the elements. When advertised for sale, the particulars for C-FNJF stated that the airframe had by this point flown for 12,829 hours.  

In time, the aircraft was purchased by Plane Sailing Air Displays Limited, a UK-based organization whose mission was to keep the wartime legacy of Catalina flying boats alive by flying a single example at air shows and other events, both within Europe and further afield. With its sound airframe, plus the added benefits of a fully installed passenger cabin viewing blisters and airstair, C-FNJF was the ideal candidate. 

Once the decision to acquire C-FNJF was made, there followed a long period of work on the aircraft to make it ready not only for the long ferry flight to the UK but also for ongoing operations. This process became protracted, as various modifications made to the airframe required clearance by the Canadian regulator Transport Canada.  

Eventually, however, all was ready and, following a period of test and familiarization flights, C-FNJF left Nanaimo on March 1, 2004. During the following month, the delivery route took in several US states before entering Canada again and then crossing the Atlantic. C-FNJF reached Shannon, Ireland in the early hours of March 30, 2004, before flying the last leg a few hours later to be met by a small band of dedicated crew, supporters, and representatives from the aviation press, radio and television reporters.  

Following its triumphant arrival at Duxford, C-FNJF flew at several air shows during that same year. At the end of the 2004 season, C-FNJF entered a period of overhaul and preparation for the British registry as G-PBYA, being re-registered as such on November 19, 2004. The plane also was repainted from its bright yellow, red, and green colors into those of the US Army Air Force (USAAF-see below), which it still retains to this day.  

The Catalina is operated by Plane Sailing Air Displays Limited on behalf of Catalina Aircraft Limited, which is made up of a group of private shareholders and is even supported by The Catalina Society. The aircraft is based at Duxford Airfield near Cambridge in the UK, itself a legendary wartime airfield that hosted squadrons of Spitfires among other types, and is now home to one of Europe’s leading civil and military aircraft museums.    

Throughout the 2024 air show season, G-PBYA will be appearing at over 20 shows across the UK and Europe, including events in France, Germany, Ireland, and even further afield. 

About the original ‘Miss Pick Up’  

It’s often asked why a Canadian-built Catalina, flying on the UK register for a private UK company, features US military markings. The reasons behind this are two-fold. The first is a commercially based decision, while the second is a nod to the legacy of the worldwide fleet of Catalinas and their crews during World War II, and one of those aircraft in particular. 

Firstly, most air show organizers prefer ex-military aircraft, or ‘warbirds’, to be painted in a military scheme to gain bookings, so Plane Sailing needed a distinctive livery for G-PBYA when it came to be repainted from its yellow and green water bomber colors at the end of the 2004 display season. 

The color scheme eventually chosen could not have been more apt. It was that of a particular USAAF Catalina, serial number 44-33915, that was based at RAF Halesworth, located around 70 miles from G-PBYA’s home base at Duxford Airfield. This plane carried the name given to by the crew originally tasked to fly it – ‘Miss Pick Up’ – plus featured corresponding wartime-era nose art.  

In January 1945, aircraft 44-33915 was deployed, along with five sisterships, with the USAAF 5th Emergency Rescue Squadron of Catalinas based at RAF Halesworth. Their primary task was to perform air-sea rescue missions to recover USAAF pilots who had either been shot down or forced to ditch their aircraft in the North Sea, off the east coast of England. The Catalinas would be deployed to rescue these pilots and return them safely to Halesworth, which was also a significant USAAF base for P-47s and B-17 ‘Flying Fortresses’. 

As it had been tasked with the job of picking up downed airmen from the sea, 44-33915 was named ‘Miss Pick Up’ by its crew.  

One wartime mission, in particular, made the service of the original Miss Pick Up a part of aviation folklore. It also represents the epitome of remarkable wartime heroism and resilience.  

On March 30, 1945, 44-33915 was deployed, along with two other Catalinas, to rescue a downed USAAF P-51 Mustang pilot in the North Sea. However, due to rough conditions, the aircraft could not land on the water to pick up the pilot, who had taken to his life raft in a location three to five miles (5-8km) off the Dutch Island of Schiermonnikoog. Having located the pilot through his launching of emergency flares, 44-33915 landed on the water’s surface to recover him.  

However, the aircraft suffered a broken main oil line upon landing and was unable to restart its starboard engine, though its hull remained sound. The plane taxied for 90 minutes on its one remaining engine, to move further away from the shoreline to remain safe.  

The following morning, with Miss Pick Up effectively a ‘sitting duck’, a pair of German Meschersmitt ME262s spotted the aircraft and strafed it with machine gun fire. The tail was completely blown off, the port float was virtually shot away, and the port wing was damaged. Numerous holes had been made in the plane’s hull, so it started to take on water and sink. The crew of Miss Pick Up had little option but to abandon their beloved plane and take to lifeboats. The aircraft eventually sank (where it remains to this day).    

The crew stayed in the lifeboats overnight, as a further rescue attempt was once again hampered by nightfall and poor weather. They then had to make it through the whole of the following day, April 1, 1945, without further rescue attempts being possible. On the next day, the crew endured more rough seas, with one of the life rafts being tossed over by the swell, although all airmen were recovered back to safety. Again, the conditions did not allow for any rescue attempts that day and by then the life raft engines had failed. 

On the following day (April 3, 1945), the crew was spotted from overhead by USAAF planes that dropped more life rafts, supplies, and emergency flare equipment. Sea conditions were starting to settle, but it would not be until the next day that a full rescue attempt for Miss Pick Up’s crew would be made.  

On the morning of April 4, 1945, the crew, by this point extremely wet, cold, and hungry, were themselves picked up by a motor rescue launch. They arrived in the coastal town of Great Yarmouth on April 5, 1945, before being transferred back to RAF Halesworth. Sadly, the P-51 Mustang pilot that they had set out to recover some seven days previously had washed ashore in Holland and been taken as a Prisoner of War by the Germans. 

Given the bravery shown by the crew of 44-33915 over those seven arduous days in 1945, it was decided that G-PBYA would assume the colors of the original Miss Pick Up – partly as a mark of respect for a locally based Catalina and its crew, but to be an active flying memorial to all the wartime Catalinas and crews who served so tirelessly in the face of grave danger during World War Two.    

Conclusion 

At the end of the 2024 air show season, G-PBYA ‘Miss Pick Up’ will return to winter hibernation in one of the hangars at Duxford Airfield. Once there, she will undergo her annual program of heavy maintenance, much of it carried out by a team of loyal volunteers under the watchful eye of the aircraft’s chief engineer, before she reappears in April 2025 to perform for air show crowds once again.   

Earning respect and bringing smiles to all those who see her fly, Miss Pick Up, despite her vintage, will hopefully continue to perform her tasks with grace and style for many years to come, bringing wonder to air show crowds while also keeping the wartime legacy of Catalinas alive for future generations.    

AeroTime would like to thank David Legg of The Catalina Society for his assistance with the historical details featured in this article. For all inquiries relating to the purchase of shares in Catalina G-PBYA, David can be contacted via email at pby5@btinternet.com.

However, this was not always the case. Remarkably, one only needs to go back less than four decades to find a time when Emirates did not even exist, and when legacy carriers such as British Airways, Gulf Air, Singapore Airlines, Pan Am, TWA, and others dominated long-haul international air travel instead.   

Fast forward to 2024 and Emirates is now one the world’s busiest airlines in terms of international travelers, carrying 51.9 million passengers and earning a staggering $37.4 billion in revenue in the year ending March 2024. So how did Emirates come from the mere idea of a way to boost tourism in the Middle East to boasting such lofty credentials?  

2024 marks four decades since the inception of Emirates. In this article, AeroTime takes a whistle-stop tour of the history of the airline and examines the key milestones that converted that early vision into the global megacarrier that the airline has become today. 

In the beginning

Before diving into the Emirates story, we first need to understand how Dubai became the international business and tourism powerhouse it is today, attracting 17.5 million visitors in 2023. 

In the late 1950s, Dubai was little more than a small fishing town. Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum became the country’s leader in 1958 and he would prove to be the catalyst Dubai needed to propel itself toward reinvention as the modern metropolis it is today. Fueled by the discovery of oil in 1966, the country was finally able to build up the financial reserves it required to develop Al Maktoum’s vision for Dubai – a city at the heart of global commerce, innovation, and tourism.   

Upon the formation of the United Arab Emirates in 1971, Al Maktoum was finally free from restrictions imposed by the British and could forge ahead with his vision. By 1977, Dubai’s population had ballooned to over 200,000 people – four times larger than at the start of the decade. 

The story of the Emirates airline comes to life in 1984 when Al Maktoum noticed that the bulk of visitors to Dubai were using Middle Eastern carrier Gulf Air to fly people to its hubs in Oman and Bahrain and connecting them to Dubai. He realized that, if the transfer at the intermediary airport could be eliminated, Dubai would become a far more attractive proposition for international travelers. 

With this concept, Al Maktoum asked Sir Maurice Flanagan, then managing director of handling company dnata, to investigate launching an airline. By December 1984, a comprehensive business plan was ready, and the name ‘Emirates’ was chosen for the enterprise. The plan proposed the formation of a new airline, based in Dubai itself, that would offer direct flights to the Emirate. From this early concept, the foundations for the new airline were laid.  

The new airline’s first flight

The new carrier was founded with a relatively small fund acquired from local private enterprises, plus a modest $10 million contribution from the Dubai royal family. Additionally, Al Maktoum and his team agreed to a support package from close ally Pakistan and its national airline Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), which provided both aircraft and operational expertise to the nascent carrier. 

To get off the ground, the new airline leased a Boeing 737-300 and an Airbus A300-200 from PIA. It also acquired a pair of Boeing 727-200 aircraft that had been part of the Dubai Air Wing – the royal family’s private ‘airline’.

The carrier’s first flight was from Dubai to Karachi on October 25, 1985 (EK600) followed by an inaugural flight to Mumbai. In its first year of operation, the carrier transported 260,000 passengers. In the same period, local rival Gulf Air saw a drop of 56% in its annual profits. 

Early ambitions for growth

In 1987, having established itself as a viable airline, Emirates embarked on an ambitious growth plan. It began expanding its fleet by taking delivery of its first wholly owned aircraft, an Airbus A310-300 on July 3, 1987 (registered A6-EKA). Over the following years, the fleet expanded with the arrival of 13 more A310s and seven larger capacity A300s.  

In the same year, Emirates launched its first flights to Europe, with a daily service from Dubai to London-Gatwick Airport (LGW), plus Frankfurt services following shortly after.  

By the end of 1987, Emirates was flying to a total of 11 destinations, including Istanbul and Male (Maldives). In its first five years of operations, Emirates grew its network to take in 14 destinations from Dubai. These included Mumbai, Delhi, Karachi, Amman, Colombo, Cairo, Dhaka, Male, Frankfurt, Istanbul, Damascus, Jeddah, and Kuwait.  

Just three years later, the carrier had added Bangkok, Manila, and Singapore to its international network, with direct services to Hong Kong commencing in 1991. By this time, Emirates was transporting around 1.6 million passengers per year and had become one of the fastest-growing airlines in the world. 

The first Gulf War in 1990-1991 had threatened to destabilize Emirates’ growth plans, but in a way, the airline actually benefitted from the conflict, as many neighboring airlines reduced their flying programs to the region as a result. When the war ended in 1991, the Emirates fleet comprised eight A310s and six A300s, and the carrier was serving 37 destinations. 

The first Boeings arrive

In 1992, Emirates entered its next stage of expansion, ordering seven Boeing 777-200s (one 777-200 and six 777-200ER aircraft) with a further seven options. That same year, it also became something of a trailblazer among airlines in terms of in-flight entertainment by being the first to install video systems in all seats in every cabin class throughout its fleet. 

The introduction of the 777s allowed the carrier to commence flights to Australia (Melbourne) in 1996. Additionally, the airline introduced the Airbus A330-200 to its fleet in 1999. In all, the airline operated 29 of the European twinjets in its fleet, until the last one was retired in 2016.  

By the end of the 1990s, Emirates’ confidence in its growth strategy seemed limitless. In May 1998, the airline spent $70 million in purchasing a 43% stake in Air Lanka, soon to become known as SriLankan Airlines, although this stake was eventually sold back to the Sri Lankan government in 2008.  

By the close of the 20th Century, passenger arrival figures at Dubai International Airport had hit the 11 million mark, thanks largely to the success of Emirates. During the financial year 1999/2000, the company carried 4.7 million passengers on its fleet of 32 aircraft, serving 50 destinations worldwide. 

Emirates in the new millennium

Emirates saw a setback in its expansion plans in 2001 and 2002 following the 9/11 attacks in New York, but the airline remained steadfast in its ambitions. Between 2004 and 2011, it placed orders with Boeing that would significantly expand its growing widebodied fleet. These orders included 114 Boeing 777-300ERs for long-range flights, plus ten further Boeing 777-200LR aircraft for ultra-long-range routes. At the time of writing, Emirates remains the world’s biggest operator of 777 aircraft. 

Airbus aircraft would also feature heavily in Emirates’ plans, with an order for seven Airbus A380 ‘Superjumbos’ being placed at the Farnborough Airshow in 2000, plus options for a further five aircraft. As such, Emirates became the first airline to sign up for the type.  

The carrier also ordered 20 A340 aircraft, although some of these orders would later be canceled. The first A380 arrived at Emirates in 2008. 

With the introduction of more ultra-long-haul aircraft, Emirates began to expand across the Atlantic and beyond. Having seen that European flag carriers were capturing much of the market from the Middle East to North and South American destinations, Emirates was keen to get a slice of the action. The move paid off, as the airline began to attract large numbers of customers traveling from the Far East, India, and South Asia to North America, using Dubai as the transfer point, rather than the more traditional connecting airports in Europe such as London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Paris. 

In 2005, Emirates made history with an order for 42 additional Boeing 777s, in a deal worth $9.7 billion. At the time, this broke records as the largest Boeing 777 order ever. 

Fleet rationalization 

As older aircraft in the fleet were retired (such as the Airbus A330s, A340s, and early 7777s), Emirates cemented its route network and fleet around just two aircraft types – the Boeing 777-300ER and the Airbus A380. In 2020, its fleet comprised 151 Boeing 777s plus a total of 115 Airbus A380s making Emirates the largest operator of the type in the world.  

The airline made the A380 work for it, in a way that no other carrier has been able to, largely due to Dubai’s geographical location, the huge amount of connecting traffic through Dubai International Airport from all corners of the world, and the specific routes on which the A380 is deployed. At the 2010 Berlin Air Show, Emirates ordered an additional 32 A380s, worth US$11.5 billion. 

Between 2000 and 2010, the airline added a further 46 destinations routes to its global route network. Cities that welcomed Emirates services for the first time during this period were Bahrain, Sydney, Entebbe, Milan, Chennai, Birmingham,  Dusseldorf, Hyderabad, Casablanca, Khartoum, Perth, Mauritius, Osaka, Kochi, Moscow, Auckland, Brisbane,  Lagos, Accra, Shanghai, Glasgow, Vienna, New York, Christchurch, Seychelles, Seoul, Thiruvananthapuram,  Abidjan, Hamburg, Kolkata, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Tunis, Bengaluru, Venice, Newcastle, Sao Paulo, Ahmedabad, Toronto, Houston,  Cape Town, Guangzhou, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Durban and Luanda.  

2010 to 2020

In 2013, Concourse A, the world’s first bespoke A380 facility, opened at Dubai International Airport, expanding the airport’s capacity to 75 million passengers per year. As a purpose-built home to the Emirates’ A380 fleet, Concourse A features dedicated Emirates First and Business Class lounges spanning over 19,000sq m, all offering direct boarding to the upper deck of the A380 aircraft via high-level airbridges. 

In 2014, boasting an estimated total value of US$3.7 billion, Emirates marked its 30th anniversary. The airline was named the world’s ‘most valuable airline brand’, and the Middle East’s most valuable brand overall, by the publication Brand Finance. In 2016, Emirates was named the World’s Best Airline and received its 12th consecutive award for the best In-flight Entertainment at the 2016 Skytrax World Airline Awards.  

In 2017, seeing a gap in the market for short-haul routes from Dubai that were not being economically served by its widebodied fleet, Emirates became a leading partner in the formation of its sister carrier flydubai. This carrier operated its first flight in 2019 and now has a network of 125 destinations served by a fleet of 87 aircraft. It is celebrating its 15th anniversary in 2024, and to date, it has carried over 100 million passengers. 

At the Dubai Airshow in 2019, Emirates ordered 30 Boeing 7879 Dreamliner aircraft worth $8.8 billion, in addition to a $16 billion order for 50 Airbus A350s, with the first of these aircraft due to be delivered to Dubai in mid-2024. 

Rounding off a busy year in Emirates’ history, 2019 also saw the airline perform a world record-breaking flight. Over 540 volunteer passengers from 145 nationalities took off on a special Emirates flight (flight number EK2019), breaking the Guinness World Record for the most nationalities on a single aircraft. The historic A380 flight took place to mark UAE National Day and the UAE Year of Tolerance, to showcase the diversity and unity of the citizens and residents of the UAE. 

By the end of the decade, Emirates had added a further 54 routes to its network from Dubai. These latest destinations were Tokyo-Narita, Amsterdam, Prague, Madrid, Dakar, Medina, Basra, Geneva, Copenhagen, St Petersburg, Baghdad, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Dublin, Lusaka, Harare, Dallas Fort Worth, Seattle, Ho Chi Minh, Barcelona, Lisbon, Washington DC, Adelaide, Lyon, Phuket, Warsaw, Algiers, Tokyo-Haneda, Stockholm, Clark, Conakry, Sialkot, Kabul, Taipei, Boston, Abuja, Chicago, Oslo, Brussels, Budapest, Bali, Orlando, Bologna, Istanbul via Sabiha Gokcen Airport, Cebu, Hanoi, Yangon, Fort Lauderdale,  Newark, Zagreb, Phnom Penh, London Stansted, Santiago de Chile, Edinburgh, Porto, and Mexico City.  

Modern-day Emirates  

Emirates has grown to become one of the world’s top airlines, particularly when considering the number of passengers flown and the quality of its premium cabins. It is renowned for having some of the best first and business class cabins in the air today, at a time when many airlines are scrapping first class altogether. It also offers onboard lounges, private suites, and showers to first-class passengers, having become the first airline to offer such a facility on a commercial flight.   

In 2023, Emirates also introduced a fourth cabin alternative, namely premium economy. While late to the party compared to many other international airlines, its premium economy product has already made headlines and won numerous awards. The new cabins were first rolled out on the carrier’s flagship A380s but are now being introduced on the Boeing 777-300ER fleet too.  

Later in 2024, the duopoly of the A380 and the 777-300ER in the Emirates fleet will finally be broken up with the arrival of the first of 50 Airbus A350-900s. Additionally, the 15 Boeing 787-9s and 15 Boeing 787-10s ordered at Farnborough in 2019 are expected to join them from 2025.   

Looking further ahead, the airline has 115 of the yet-to-be-certified Boeing 777X on order, which will be used in due course to replace older 777s and possibly some A380s. At the time of writing, the carrier has 89 of its 119 Airbus A380s in service, with the remaining 30 currently in storage.     

Conclusion  

From its relatively humble beginnings, Emirates has become completely unrecognizable from the bold upstart that flew an aging leased Boeing 737-300 from Dubai to Karachi in October 1985.

Now flying a huge fleet of modern aircraft to a dazzling array of destinations across the globe, it’s unlikely that Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum could ever have envisaged such a success story when he first imagined launching a national carrier based in Dubai back in 1984.    

The Boeing 727-200 registered SX-CBA and named “Mount Olympus” has been completely restored and is now on display in Hellinikon, a coastal suburb in southern Athens close to where the former international airport used to be located, before being replaced by Athens Eleftherios Venizelos International Airport (ATH) in 2001. 

The vintage plane was owned and operated throughout its flying career by Greek flag carrier Olympic Airways. The aircraft was one of six of the type originally purchased in 1968 by Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis, who controlled the state carrier at the time. It was the first Boeing 727 to be delivered to the airline and was retired from service in 1992, 24 years later. It then remained parked at the airport pending disposal.  

Following the closure of the airport at Hellinikon in 2001, the aircraft was left abandoned gathering dust, alongside a former Olympic Airways 737-200 (SX-BCA), a 747-200 (SX-DAB) plus a Hellenic Imperial Airways BAC One-Eleven (SX-BAR) – the only one of the type to have made it onto the Greek register.  

In 2023, Cyprus-based aviation brokerage firm Zela Aviation acquired the 727 and the One-Eleven and paid for the pair to be restored and relocated with the aim of “preserving Greek aviation heritage”, according to a company statement. 

“I wanted to preserve these planes for our children and grandchildren to remember,” said Zela Aviation’s founder,  Andreas Christodoulides.  

Having undergone a full restoration and repaint, the aircraft was transferred from its parking spot at the old airport site overnight on February 29, 2024, to be reassembled in its new location. Although the aircraft had to be partially disassembled for the transfer, it has since been reassembled and is now standing as a monument to Greece’s aviation heydays and as a new tourist attraction that is expected to boost the local economy. 

“The presence of Mount Olympus in Hellinikon embodies our country’s aviation history and links two significant landmarks: Olympic Airlines and the Hellinikon airport,” said Infrastructure and Transport Minister Christos Staikouras at the aircraft’s unveiling ceremony. 

“It’s more than just an exhibit – it’s a living monument to Greek aviation history and will mark a significant milestone for the municipality,” he added. 

At the unveiling event, it was revealed that the BAC One-Eleven which has also been fully restored, will be unveiled in September 2024, displayed alongside the harbor in Lavrio – another Athens suburb that was also chosen by Zela Aviation to benefit from having part of Greece’s aviation heritage located within its locale.  

Background to Olympic Airways  

Established in 1957 under the original name Olympic Airways by the renowned Greek business magnate Aristotle Onassis, Olympic Airlines served as the former flag carrier of Greece. The carrier adopted the iconic Olympic rings as its logo, part of an identity that remains synonymous with the carrier to this day.  

Throughout the 1960s, the airline experienced rapid expansion, facilitating connections between Greece, Western Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.  

However, following an aircraft accident involving his son, in 1973 Onassis transferred ownership of the company to the Greek State. Nowadays, the company operates under the new name Olympic Air under the stewardship of fellow Greek carrier Aegean Airlines. The carrier currently operates 14 ATR42/72 turboprops plus a pair of DHC-8-100s, the latter of which are used for operations to Greek islands with shorter runways.  

55 years ago, in February of that year, the world watched in wonder as the Boeing 747, the largest airliner ever to have been produced by that stage, took to the air for the first time. The aircraft would bring cheaper mass air travel to significantly more people globally than any previous commercial aircraft.  

A little under a month later, the world watched on again as an aircraft shaped like a sleek white dart roared into the skies over Toulouse, France, as the first prototype Concorde took its maiden flight. Concorde would introduce the world to the concept of commercial supersonic travel, in a show of formidable and inspiring engineering excellence.  

With two major aviation firsts already achieved that year, the triumphant trilogy of 1969 was completed in July as almost 650 million people worldwide watched three American astronauts fly to and successfully land on the Moon’s surface – an event of such magnitude that its repercussions are still impacting our everyday lives. 

So, strap in as AeroTime revisits the aviation landmark year of 1969 – a year that changed how we would travel by air forever.  

February 9, 1969 – The first flight of the Boeing 747

The legendary Boeing 747 was the brainchild of two visionaries in American aviation – Joe Sutter, who led the aircraft’s design team at Boeing, and Juan Trippe, the then charismatic head of Pan American World Airways (Pan Am).  

With the demand for air travel rapidly increasing throughout the 1960s since the dawn of the jet age, aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing, Douglas, and others had worked hard to produce larger aircraft to keep up with demand. Types such as the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 had transformed intercontinental travel by lowering the cost per seat for airlines, and consequently airfares for passengers.  

It was during this boom for international travel that Juan Trippe approached Boeing, asking whether the company could design and build an airliner 2.5 times larger than the 707, for which Pan Am had been the launch customer. The new aircraft would have to offer a 30% lower seat cost per passenger over the 707, while being able to fly further and carry more passengers on the key international routes of the era, such as New York to London. 

With the 747 already on the design board (thanks to a previous US military request for proposals for a larger jet-powered cargo aircraft), Sutter and his team took that existing design and repurposed it as a commercial airplane, capable of carrying up to 500 passengers, plus belly cargo, on routes of 8-9 hours flying time. In April 1966, with the 747 final design work complete, Pan Am placed an initial order for 25 of the ‘jumbo jets’ from Boeing, in a $525 million deal that would enable production of the new aircraft to begin. 

The first 747, registered N7470 and given the apt name of ‘City of Everett’ (after Boeing’s then-hometown in Washington state), rolled out of the factory at Everett’s Paine Field near Seattle on September 30, 1968. Gathered for this momentous event was the world’s press, alongside representatives of the 26 airlines that had ordered 747s by that point.  

But while the aircraft was complete, various ground tests were required to satisfy the Federal Aviation Administration sufficiently for them to grant a permit for the first flight.  

On the morning of February 9, 1969, N7470 took off for the first time from Paine Field, as hundreds of spectators looked on in awe. In command of the huge aircraft that day was Boeing’s Chief Test Pilot Jack Wardell. He was accompanied on the flight deck of N7470 by Engineering Test Pilot Brien Singleton Wygle and Flight Engineer Jesse Arthur Wallick. 

Although the weather on that cold February morning was initially grey and overcast, conditions soon improved, and by 11:20 the aircraft was cleared to begin its very first take-off run and take its maiden flight. Captain Wardell advanced the four throttles and upon reaching a speed of around 165 mph (263kph), the aircraft’s nose was lifted, and the plane headed skyward.  

Having safely reached the required test altitude, the crew carried out a range of general handling tests, amongst others required before the FAA could certify the Boeing 747 for commercial passenger service. These tests included a simulated loss of hydraulic power, stall recovery, and other intentional cross-control maneuvers, such as a ‘Dutch Roll’. The four engines were also put through their paces, with the crew ensuring that various adverse attitudes would not restrict fuel flow to the engines, causing them to stall.  

With the handling and engine tests complete, the next test involved lowering the flaps in stages to see how the airframe responded to the increased drag. However, upon selecting the flaps down from 25 to 30 degrees, the aircraft shuddered, and a marked vibration ran through the airframe. With the flaps retracted back to the 25-degree setting, Wallick was dispatched from the flight deck to make a visual check of the flaps from the cabin windows downstairs.  

Upon his return, Wallick reported that a section of flaps on the right wing had become loose, causing the vibration. Although the test flight was prematurely terminated at this point, the aircraft continued to rendezvous with a Boeing 727 for an aerial photo shoot over Washington for prosperity.  

That being accomplished, Wardell brought the larger plane back to Paine Field at 12:50, making a near-perfect landing – quite a feat for such a large aircraft on its first try-out. 

Although the Boeing 747’s maiden flight did not pass without issue, it was immediately hailed as a huge success. Not only did it mark the start of mass air travel, but it would also pave the way for over five decades of Boeing 747 production, with the type seeing various upgrades and derivatives over that time.  

Production of the 747 finally ended in December 2022 with the 1,574^th and final 747 rolling out of the Boeing plant in Everett and being handed over to customer Atlas Air.  

March 2, 1969 – Concorde’s first flight

Exactly three weeks after Boeing had grabbed headlines with the first 747 flight, it was the turn of the Europeans to grab the spotlight.  

In February 1965, eight years after the UK’s Ministry of Supply had first formed the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC) to examine the feasibility of designing and producing a supersonic airliner, France’s Sud Aviation (later to become part of Aérospatiale) and the UK’s British Aircraft Corporation began the construction of two Concorde prototypes.  

The two companies built one aircraft each, at their respective factories in Toulouse (aircraft 001) and Filton, near Bristol, England (aircraft 002).  

Following the conclusion of four years of intensive design work, at the start of 1969 Concorde was certified by the French and British aviation authorities to begin test flights. The French-built aircraft 001 would be the first to fly, to be followed by the British-built aircraft just a few weeks later.  

So it was that the first flight of a Concorde took place on March 2, 1969, from Toulouse-Blagnac Airport in the southwest of France. Aircraft 001 taxied to the end of Toulouse’s runway, with the world’s media looking on. At the controls was André Édouard Turcat, a former test pilot for the French Air Force who had been hand-picked by Sud Aviation to take their exciting new plane for its first flight. 

This first flight had been delayed by two days of inclement weather in Toulouse. However, now in clear skies, the delta-winged Concorde roared and smoked its way above Toulouse. Climbing to 10,000ft (3,080m), the Concorde accelerated to around 300mph (483kph), though remaining well under supersonic speeds for this initial sortie.  

Having been airborne for just 27 minutes, the aircraft made a safe first landing back at Toulouse Airport. Captain Turcat subsequently told reporters gathered to witness the occasion that Concorde had behaved as expected, “with no actual issues, except for some minor malfunctions with instruments, which was unavoidable”. 

The first British-built Concorde (002) took its first flight from Filton on April 9, 1969, piloted by Captain Brian Trubshaw. 

Both prototypes were displayed at the 1969 Paris Airshow, following which aircraft 001 set out on a promotional sales tour to the US during September 1969, which also included the type’s first Atlantic crossing. Meanwhile, 002 headed to the Middle East and the Far East in the hope of drumming up customers there.  

The Concorde finally entered service in 1976, although just two airlines would go on to own and operate it during its 27-year career, namely Air France and British Airways. 

July 20, 1969 – The first moon landing

Coming towards the end of a momentous six-month period for global aerospace development, the first landing on the lunar surface by a manned space mission (Apollo 11) in July 1969 marked the pinnacle of ingenuity and engineering brilliance. As Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the Moon’s surface, he could scarcely have grasped that his actions would change the world forever. 

The American resolve to send astronauts to the Moon had begun in the US Congress in May 1961, when President John F. Kennedy declared, “I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth”.  

At the time, the United States was trailing behind the Soviet Union in space development and was keen to forge ahead in that race. In 1966, following five years of work, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted the first unmanned Apollo mission into space, designed to refine the structural integrity and overall design of the proposed launch vehicle and spacecraft combination that would later take humans to the Moon.  

NASA pressed ahead, sending the manned Apollo 7 mission around the Earth in October 1968, followed by Apollo 8, which took three astronauts to the far side of the Moon and back in December of the same year. In March 1969, Apollo 9 tested the lunar module for the first time, while remaining in Earth’s orbit. Finally, in May 1969, NASA carried out a ‘dry run’ of a lunar landing mission, sending Apollo 10 around the Moon with three crewmembers onboard.  

After almost eight years of perseverance, the stage was finally set for a manned mission to land on the Moon.  

At 09:32 EDT on July 16, 1969, Apollo 11 blasted off from Kennedy Space Center, Florida carrying astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins onboard. Armstrong, a 38-year-old civilian research pilot, had been selected as the commander of what would become a truly historic mission. 

After traveling 240,000 miles over 76 hours of flying time, Apollo 11 entered lunar orbit on July 19, 1969. The following day, at 13:46, the lunar module (callsign ’Eagle’), manned by Armstrong and Aldrin, separated from the command module to begin the descent to the Moon’s surface. Collins remained at the controls in the command module.  

At 16:17, the Eagle touched down on the southwestern edge of the Sea of Tranquility. Armstrong immediately radioed to NASA Mission Control in Houston, Texas, the now-legendary message: “The Eagle has landed.” 

At 22:39, Armstrong made his way down the module’s ladder. A television camera attached to the exterior of the Eagle recorded his movements, beaming the images back to Earth where an estimated 650 million people worldwide huddled around television screens to watch the remarkable events unfolding in (almost) real-time. At 22:56, Armstrong stepped off the ladder and planted his foot on the Moon’s surface.  

19 minutes later, Aldrin joined him on the Moon’s surface and the two men took photographs of the terrain, planted a US flag, and spoke with President Richard Nixon via a radio link patched through Houston mission control.  

By 01:11 on July 21, 1969, both astronauts had returned to the lunar module and spent that night sleeping within, while still on the Moon. Around 12 hours later, the Eagle began its ascent back to the command module where the two men rejoined Collins. At 00:56 on July 22, 1969, the crew of Apollo 11 began their journey back to Earth, splashing down in the Pacific Ocean at 12:45 on July 24, 1969. 

Independently significant, together world-changing

Taken in isolation, each of these three events was a marvel of engineering, designed and built by some of the most brilliant minds of the day. Independently, each ‘first’ captured the attention of millions and became a significant milestone in the history of aviation. Yet, given that they occurred within six months of each other, the huge collective impact of these three events rippled around the world, shaping how air travel would change and develop over the coming decades. 

The 747 brought reduced-price air travel to many, opening up the world of international travel to the masses to a previously unseen degree. The 747 also changed how large aircraft were developed and built, showing airlines and airports the effectiveness and economies of scale offered by large passenger aircraft.  

The arrival of the 747 brought design changes at airports, too. With hundreds of passengers arriving and departing on every jumbo jet, airports had to adapt quickly, with expanded boarding lounges, immigration halls, check-in counters, and other terminal facilities – changes that are still in evidence at many international airports today.  

Lastly, the 747 raised the bar in terms of passenger comfort, and the groundwork laid down by the ‘Queen of the Skies’ in this arena is still used by aircraft interior designers of the modern age in terms of cabin layouts, facilities onboard, and comfort levels. 

Concorde, meanwhile, showed just what could be achieved by aerospace teams collaborating to reach a common goal. For 27 years, the world’s fleet of Concordes crisscrossed the Atlantic Ocean, as well as being seen in many other parts of the world.  

The development of the supersonic airliner showed the world that speed matters, and that in an increasingly time-pressured world, there is a market for saving several hours while also using one’s time more productively.

Inspired by this mantra, Concorde’s legacy, and the pervasive allure of speed, present-day companies such as Boom Supersonic are striving to bring a supersonic commercial airliner back to our skies. Should any of these companies succeed, much faster and cheaper air travel could become accessible, opening more markets to new travelers just as the 747 did in its heyday.  

While there are many obstacles still to be overcome (many of which contributed to the grounding of the Concorde in 2003), if this can be achieved, then perhaps one day we will once again cross the world’s oceans in just a small handful of hours.  

Lastly, regarding the Moon landing, without the work that went into getting humans to land on the Moon’s surface, the aviation world would not enjoy the benefit of a huge range of innovations that were developed by NASA and its partners during the Apollo program.  

From fly-by-wire technology, satellite navigation, and advanced flight management and navigation computers to weather radar, satellite-based communications, and the types of meals served on commercial aircraft and even the way they are cooked onboard (e.g. via microwave ovens) – all of these advancements owe a huge debt to the work done for the Apollo missions.

Simply put, airlines of the modern age still rely on technology developed during the 1960s to get us where we want to be in a safe and timely manner.  

Conclusion 

Without the technological developments and innovations brought about by the Boeing 747, Concorde, and Apollo 11 ‘firsts’, modern air travel today could be much slower, less reliable, more expensive, and less safe than it is – the benefits of which we can all enjoy, whether it be for leisure or business travel, on a commuter airline or an international megacarrier.  

While it may be tempting to think of these innovations as relics from yesteryear, or developments from another age from which the world has moved on, you might want to think again.

As you traverse the continents from the comfort of your modern airline seat, watching the inflight entertainment or sending messages via the onboard Wi-Fi to loved ones, you might even reconsider the huge significance of those historic leaps forward during 1969. 

In what other ways do you think these three events changed the way we travel by air today? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below. 

One aircraft that fits this description more than most would be the Aviation Traders Limited ATL-98 Carvair. Specifically designed to carry both passengers and their cars simultaneously, the remarkably shaped British aircraft found a niche for itself in the 1960s and 1970s as a truly adaptable airliner.

However, with only a small number being built, and facing stiff competition within the markets for which it was specifically designed, the Carvair, as it became more commonly known, only managed to enjoy an abbreviated service life. This is the story of the iconic British aircraft’s introduction, service life, and ultimate demise.     

Background

The Carvair – abbreviated from the phrase ‘car-via air’ – was the brainchild of the British aviation entrepreneur Sir Freddie Laker, who later established one of the world’s first low-cost airlines, Laker Airways Skytrain.   

During the war years of 1941-46, Laker flew as a pilot for the Air Transport Auxiliary. Following his military service life, he worked for the fledgling airline British European Airways. However, frustrated by working for others, Laker wished to be his own boss and established his own aviation business. He borrowed £38,000 (US$50,000) and set up Aviation Traders Limited (ATL).

This company’s primary business was buying and selling surplus war aircraft and parts, although its engineering arm also began to specialize in modifying existing aircraft into dedicated freighters. Fortune favored Laker, as the timing meant that Aviation Traders was perfectly placed to benefit financially from the Berlin Airlift in 1948-49 when demand for serviceable cargo aircraft exploded.

The first aircraft developed by Aviation Traders that could be converted to carry passengers or freight in the main cabin was the ATL-90. Based on the Douglas DC-3 (of which there were plenty available), and given a tricycle landing gear, the ATL-90 was re-engined with Rolls-Royce Dart engines (as also used on the Vickers Viscount and Hawker Siddeley HS748, amongst others), and given a hinged nose section and a rear cargo loading door. This new model was named ‘The Accountant’.

However, with fierce competition from other types such as the Fokker F27 and Handley Page Herald, the Accountant struggled to find its place and, keen not to lose everything on this one project, Laker swiftly decided to end production of it in 1959.

Fly-drive holidays are born

During the 1950s, as the demand for holidays outside the UK took off, Laker spotted a further business opportunity. In 1954, he founded the airline Channel Air Bridge. This carrier specialized in ferrying both cars and their passengers across the English Channel for holidays in France and beyond, just as the desire for foreign holidays was burgeoning. Automobile ownership had also continued to rise throughout the 1950s and as such, more adequate methods were required to move cars between the United Kingdom and mainland Europe.

Initially, the airline operated the Bristol 170 Freighter, which could carry passengers and their cars on the same flight. The Bristol Freighter had a sliding ramp in the fuselage nose, but suffered from a limited loading capacity, accommodating only three vehicles per flight. As such, the modern cars of the time couldn’t fit effectively, given the freight hold’s restricted proportions. By 1958, Laker had decided that the airline needed something larger for its expanding cross-channel operations.

As a superior replacement, Laker chose to redesign an existing airplane type, enlarging the nose to provide an effective solution to the capacity issue. This would be a useful way to meet the growing demand without being as expensive as designing a brand-new aircraft type.

The result of this development was the ATL-98 Carvair. The aircraft proved far more successful than its predecessor, The Accountant, and gave Channel Air Bridge the capacity it required as demand for car-via-air services to France increased.

Guide to the ATL-98 Carvair

The Douglas DC-4 was selected as the platform for conversion into the ATL-98 as there were still plenty of surplus aircraft following the war. This type was initially developed as a four-engine transcontinental airliner, but following the introduction of jet-powered aircraft, the DC-4 had quickly become obsolete on such routes. Consequently, ATL could obtain airworthy, used DC-4s aircraft for rock-bottom prices.

The most significant part of the conversion involved replacing the entire fuselage forward of the wings with a new nose section. The new structure included a large side-opening nose door to enable the quick loading and unloading of vehicles. It also incorporated an entirely new flight deck, raised above cabin level, resulting in an unobstructed cargo space from nose to tail.

With its elevated cockpit, the ungainly Carvair bore a vague resemblance to the Boeing 747, which would follow in years to come. When used on dual car-carrying/passenger missions, vehicles would be elevated to cabin level with a scissors-type lift and loaded through the front door, while passengers would sit at the back of the plane, exactly as in a more conventional airliner.

Service History

The Carvair first flew on June 21, 1961, and was operated by either two or three flight crew members and powered by four Pratt & Whitney R-2000-7M2 Twin Wasp 14-cylinder radial engines. Its three-bladed Hamilton-Standard Hydromatic propellers allowed the Carvair to reach speeds up to 250 mph (400 km/h), while the aircraft offered an impressive range of 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km).

The Carvair could generally accommodate five cars in the forward section and 22 passengers in the rear cabin. However, uniquely for the time, the passenger area could be adapted swiftly to meet the varying requirements of potential customer airlines. For example, it could carry just three cars and 55 passengers or be converted to carry either just cargo or only passengers. In a passenger-only configuration, the Carvair’s non-pressurized cabin could accommodate up to 85 passengers.

In this regard, the type could be seen as something of a predecessor to the ‘Combi’ passenger/cargo jets of the late 20th century.

Laker’s own airline, Channel Air Bridge, introduced the Carvair in February 1962, operating up to 24 daily roundtrip flights from Southend Airport (SEN), near London, to Calais (CQF) in northern France, Ostend (OST) in Belgium, and Rotterdam (RTM) in the Netherlands.

Eventually, the Carvair’s route network would stretch deeper into continental Europe with Channel Air Bridge taking advantage of the aircraft’s useful range capability. The type could be found at airports in Strasbourg (STR) on the French-German border, as well as in Geneva (GVA) and Basel (BSL) in Switzerland.

Spanish domestic airline Aviaco used Carvairs on its regular car-carrying air shuttle between the Balearic Islands and the Spanish mainland. Irish carrier Aer Lingus used its fleet of three Carvairs to fly car-carrying services between Ireland and Liverpool (LPL) and Bristol (BRS) in the UK, as well as Cherbourg (CER) in France. The airline’s Carvairs were also used on regular night cargo flights between the Irish mainland and several UK airports.

Later, a range of other operators found niche uses for the distinctive Carvair, including British Air Ferries and the United Nations which used a single example in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Fate of the Carvair

The eventual demise of the car-via-air market, as better sea connections were established, compounded by the constant need for extensive maintenance, led to a decline in the Carvair’s popularity. Despite this, the type continued to operate as dedicated freighters for several niche cargo operators located worldwide, from New Zealand and Australia to the US, Europe, and Africa.

In total, 21 DC-4 aircraft underwent the lengthy conversion process to become Carvairs between 1961 and 1968. British United Air Ferries was the largest customer, with 18 deliveries off the production line, while Australia’s Ansett took on the remaining three. From 1962, as more and more conversions were completed and as the 21 production aircraft were traded, the head-turning Carvair could be seen in the skies around the world more and more. One example even made it onto the silver screen, appearing in the classic 1964 James Bond movie, ‘Goldfinger.’

Sadly, the end of the Carvair story is not a happy one. The type suffered a rather high rate of losses, with eight airframes being written off in flying accidents, costing the lives of 11 crew members. Many of the remaining aircraft were scrapped.

Carvair survivors

By 1997, only four of the original 22 Carvair conversions remained. One of these (registered N103) was lost that year near Fairbanks in Alaska when a major engine fire caused the crew to carry out a forced landing on a sandbank in the Chandalar River. In 2007, a further example was lost, also in Alaska, when aircraft N898AT crashed upon landing at Nixon Fork Mine near the town of McGrath.

Of the remaining two airframes, one is Zambian-registered 9J-PAA which was the 21^st and final Carvair to be produced. This aircraft remains in long-term storage at Rand Airport (QRA) on the outskirts of Johannesburg, South Africa. The aircraft belongs to Phoebus Apollo Aviation, a locally based flight training school, and can still be seen via Google Earth in a storage area at the airport close to the South African Airways Museum. It last flew in 2005, and its current airworthiness status is unknown.

The sole remaining Carvair is N89FA which is believed to still reside at Gainesville Airport in Texas. Records show that this aircraft remains owned by an organization called South African Air Lease LLC and held valid registration documents as recently as the end of March 2024. The most recent photos of the aircraft posted online show it largely intact, with four engines still apparently installed on the airframe.

Conclusion

The Carvair failed to become a major seller in the wider commercial market for several key reasons. Firstly, quicker and more efficient sea transport options became available on most of the routes served by Carvairs (especially between the UK and northern Europe), and so the type’s niche market quickly eroded.

Additionally, as increasing numbers of jet aircraft were introduced throughout the 1960s making journey times faster and cheaper for passengers, the Carvair’s unique ability for quick point-to-point travel was lost.

Lastly, with high maintenance costs, particularly relating to its four-piston radial engines, plus its poor safety record, the Carvair’s attractiveness to operators in its target market quickly dwindled.   

That said, for a period, the Carvair was ideal for the market segment for which it was first designed and built. Furthermore, its adaptability, alongside its uniqueness and charismatic yet ungainly design, means that the Carvair remains an important part of global aviation history, and the plane still holds a special place in the hearts of many aviation enthusiasts worldwide.

This project, which has been named the ‘Century Mission’, also aims to mark the centenary of the first aerial circumnavigation of the globe, which was completed in 1924 by eight members of the U.S. Army Air Service flying on four specially modified DT-2 torpedo bomber aircraft. 

On this occasion, the aircraft has been provided by Global Jet Care, an air ambulance services provider based in Florida. The expedition, which seeks to complete the journey in the space of 60 hours, is also being supported by a number of private sponsors. 

The funds raised by this initiative are destined to fund the restoration back to flying condition of one of the first production Learjets, an airframe that was delivered in 1964. 

The Century Mission set off from Wichita, Kansas, a city that’s the historical home of the Learjet production line. 

The flight path will take Global Jetcare founder Bart Gray and four other pilots and crew members in a westbound direction, with stopovers planned at 11 different airports in California, Hawaii, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Singapore, India, Dubai, Egypt, Italy, Portugal and Canada. If everything goes according to plan, the voyagers are expected to touch down again in Wichita 54 hours and 30 minutes after their initial departure. 

What follows is a harrowing story of how a seemingly innocent visit to the flight deck by a child resulted in the loss of 75 lives along with the destruction of the aircraft.  

Background 

On the night of March 22, 1994, Aeroflot Flight 593 was a scheduled passenger flight operating from Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport (SVO) bound for Hong Kong’s Kai Tak International Airport (HKG).  

The flight was being flown that night by an Airbus A310-300 aircraft, operated by Aeroflot Russian International Airlines (ARIA), an autonomous division of the Russian national carrier Aeroflot to operate modern western aircraft routes between Russia and destinations in Southeast Asia and Europe. The aircraft, registered F-OGQS, had been delivered new to the airline on December 11, 1992, and was powered by a pair of General Electric CF6 turbofan engines. 

The flight’s departure from Moscow at 16:39 local time was on time and uneventful, with passengers soon settling down for the nine-hour long night flight to Hong Kong – a city that all those onboard Flight 593 would never reach. 

Crew details  

On Flight 593 that night were a total of 75 people comprising 63 passengers and 12 crew. Of the 63 passengers flying to Hong Kong, 40 were Russian nationals (including 30 employees of Aeroflot) with the balance made up largely of business travelers from Hong Kong and Taiwan heading home after meetings in Russia.  

Flight 593’s flight deck crew was made up of three pilots. The captain was Andrey Viktorovich Danilov (aged 40), who had flown for Aeroflot since November 1992 and had over 9,500 hours of flying experience in total, including 950 hours in the A310. Second in command was first officer Igor Vasilyevich Piskaryov (aged 33), who had flown for the airline since October 1993 and had 5,885 hours of flight time, including 440 hours in the A310.  

The relief (or “cruise”) pilot that night was Captain Yaroslav Vladimirovich Kudrinsky aged 39. Kudrinksy, who was the most recent crew member to join the carrier, had been employed since November 1992 and had accrued over 8,940 flying hours, with 907 hours in the A310.  

In addition to the three flight crew members, nine flight attendants were working in the cabin of Flight 593. 

Flightdeck visitors 

Shortly after midnight on March 23, 1994, with the flight cruising at 33,000ft (10,100m) relief captain Kudrinsky had taken over command of Flight 593, with Captain Danilov resting in the cabin. Kudrinsky invited his two children (who were flying with him to Hong Kong as passengers) to join him on the flight deck of the A310. At this point, there were five people in the flight deck made up of Kudrinksy, his two children (Son Eldar aged 15, and daughter Yana aged 13), first officer Piskaryov, plus a third off-duty Aeroflot pilot, Vladimir Makarov, who had escorted the children into the flight deck. 

The two children of Captain Kudrinsky were on their first international trip with their father and were invited by him onto the flight deck to see his place of work. At this point, the aircraft was flying on autopilot as it cruised towards its destination in the dead of night, with most of the passengers sleeping.  

Contrary to Aeroflot flying regulations, Kudrinsky let each of his two children sit in the left-hand seat of the aircraft in turn, facing the controls. At 00:43, Yana took her father’s seat first, with Kudrinksy manually adjusting the autopilot’s heading setting to create the impression that Yana was ‘flying’ the plane. After a few more minutes at 00:51, Yana vacated the seat for her older brother Eldar to face the controls. For reasons unknown, Pudrinsky allowed Eldar to manipulate the controls, presumably in the belief that the autopilot was flying the plane and that any control inputs from Eldar would have no effect. 

At around 00:54, Eldar manipulated the control stick for over 30 seconds with inputs of up to 10 kilograms. These strong inputs contradicted those being made by the autopilot to keep the plane in straight and level flight. The result of these inputs was that the flight computer flying the A310 switched the aircraft’s ailerons (the flight control surfaces that control the bank angle of the aircraft) to ‘manual’ while maintaining its control of the other aspects of the aircraft’s flight profile. 

Eldar was effectively in partial control of the aircraft at this point although no one on board realized it. As the autopilot attempted to return the aircraft to its prescribed heading, it came into conflict with the inputs from the control wheel which had increased to 12 to 13 kg. This conflict had led to the disconnection of the autopilot servo from the aileron control linkage. 

Although a non-audible warning light had illuminated on the cockpit display to warn the pilots of the partial disengagement of the autopilot, the pilots failed to notice the light. Both pilots had mostly only flown Russian-built aircraft during their careers before switching to the A310, hence were unfamiliar with the configuration of the type’s cockpit warning lights.

The horror unfolds 

With the forceful control inputs from Eldar, the aircraft entered a bank to the right at a rate of 2.5 degrees per second. The bank angle eventually reached 45 degrees. At that point, the autopilot was no longer able to maintain altitude due to the high bank angle of the wings.  

The A310 started to buffet which caught the attention of Captain Kudrinksy. He immediately ordered the co-pilot to take control while he attempted to get Eldar to vacate the left-hand seat so he could regain control of the aircraft. As the co-pilot’s seat was in the fully aft position (which is often the case when flights are on autopilot in the cruise) it took the co-pilot two to three seconds to adjust his seat to reach the controls. In the meantime, the bank angle had increased to an extreme 90 degrees.  

The A310 was unable to turn at such a steep angle while maintaining altitude, and the plane started to descend rapidly. As it did so, the increased G-forces made regaining control of the aircraft extremely challenging for the crew. With command over the ailerons lost, the plane’s autopilot used other control inputs such as increasing engine thrust and pitching the nose up to correct the rapid descent. However, unable to recover the plane to a flyable attitude, the autopilot eventually disengaged completely, leaving those in the flight deck to recover the plane’s adverse attitude.  

Unrecoverable spin 

First Officer Piskaryov managed to recover the aircraft’s dive with the reduced G-forces allowing Kudrinsky to retake his seat. However, in his haste to recover from the dive, Piskaryov over-corrected with the controls sending the plane into a near vertical climb, which without autopilot correction, stalled the aircraft which subsequently entered a spin as a result.  

Although the pattern of spin and recovery was repeated twice further, the aircraft lost a huge amount of altitude in the process, descending beneath the minimum safe altitude for the flight at that section of its route over mountainous terrain.  

WARNING – The video below features content that some readers may find upsetting.

At 00:59, air traffic controllers in Novokuznetsk were preparing to receive a radio transmission from Flight 593 with its next scheduled position report. This call never came. Simultaneously, the aircraft’s image had disappeared from their radar screens, with frantic radio calls made to the flight going unanswered.  

At 00:58, two minutes and six seconds after the drama unfolded, Flight 593 crashed in a flat attitude at high vertical speed, estimated to be around 70 m/s (160 mph/; 250 km/h). The location of the accident site was in the Kuznetsk Alatau Mountain range in the Kemerovo Oblast region of southern Russia, about 20km from the town of Mezhdurechensk. All 75 people onboard died as a result of the high-speed impact. The aircraft was completely destroyed.  

Two hours later, a report reached the authorities that burning aircraft wreckage had been spotted on a remote mountainside some 13 miles (20 km) southeast of the town of Mezhdurechensk. A team of rescuers subsequently trekked to the crash site where they were met with a scene of devastation consisting of smoldering aircraft wreckage, scorched forest, and human remains.  

Immediate aftermath 

In the days following the loss of Flight 593, families of the passengers and crew visited the site to leave floral tributes to honor the dead. The aircraft’s two flight recorders were recovered two days after the crash. 

Having originally denied reports that there had been children in the flight deck of the doomed aircraft at the time of the crash, Aeroflot was forced to quickly change their account of events involving Flight 593 when in September 1994, a Moscow-based newspaper published a leaked copy of the cockpit voice recorder transcript.  

The international aviation community quickly formed a common view from the transcript that while the crew had fought bravely to recover the aircraft (almost managing to do so on more than one occasion), their attempts were hampered by the presence of children in the cockpit along with the flight crew’s unfamiliarity with the aircraft type and Western-built aircraft in general. 

Investigation findings 

The formal report of the loss of Flight 593 was published in April 1995 just over a year following the accident. The report concluded that the crash was caused by a stall, spin, and impact with high ground resulting from a combination of factors. These factors included the following: 

 1. The decision by the crew to allow an unqualified child to occupy his seat and intervene in the flying of the airplane. 

 2. Application by the unauthorized person (and subsequently the co-pilot) of control forces that interfered with the functioning of the autopilot, thus overriding the autopilot, and disconnecting it from the aileron control linkage. 

 3. The failure by the pilots to detect that the autopilot had become disconnected from the aileron control linkage promptly.  

4. The captain is away from his position and distracted by a conversation with his daughter. 

 5. The unintended commencement of a slight further turn of the controls following disengagement of the autopilot causing a right roll to develop. 

 6. The crew’s failure to detect the excessive right bank angle which exceeded operating limits. 

 7. Delays by the crew in identifying that the aircraft had exceeded the maximum bank angle which could have provided the necessary time to make suitable corrections to the plane’s attitude to recover the dire situation that had developed.  

8. Inappropriate and ineffective actions by the co-pilot, who failed to disconnect the autopilot and to push the control column forward when the buffeting occurred, causing the aircraft to stall and enter a flat spin which ended with the aircraft impacting the high terrain.  

9. The unpreparedness of the crew to act in this situation because of a lack of appropriate drills in the training program and unfamiliarity with the aircraft type, its autopilot, and its flight control systems. 

10. A temporary loss of spatial orientation in night conditions by the crew which hampered any recovery of the aircraft from its adverse flying attitude.  

Summary 

As with most aviation accidents, there was no singular cause that led to the loss of Aeroflot Fight 593. The accident was ultimately the tragic result of a combination of factors that, in isolation may not have resulted in the loss of the aircraft and all onboard, but when occurring in rapid succession, led to a situation that proved to be unrecoverable for the crew.

While the events that led to the loss of Flight 593 should have remained an innocent cockpit visit of curious and excited children visiting their father’s place of work, they ended with a tragedy of unimaginable consequences.

While cockpit access rules were tightened in the years following the loss of Flight 593, they were tightened further following tragic events in the US on September 11, 2001, where terrorists took control of several US domestic flights causing them to crash with the loss of all onboard.  Additionally, we now see cockpit access protocols being complied with more stringently across the world and where safety remains paramount when operating any commercial aircraft.

These days, we live in an age where casual cockpit visits are all but a thing of the past, and stories of passengers being invited to visit the flight deck of commercial passenger airliners are confined to aviation folklore. Where such events were once a common occurrence, they are simply no longer allowed. However regretful that fact might be, the decision to ban such visits has ultimately negated any risk of any flight suffering the similar fate that befell Aeroflot Flight 593.

AeroTime investigates the history of the carrier, from flying a single turboprop aircraft on just one regional route between Ireland and the United Kingdom (UK) to the pan-European megacarrier it is today. 

Ryanair – the beginning 

The story of Ryanair begins in the middle of 1984. The company was founded by three Irish businessmen – Tony Ryan (the founder of Irish aircraft leasing company Guinness Peat Aviation), Christopher Ryan, and Liam Lonergan, the owner of Irish travel firm Club Air. Tony Ryan’s two sons also took leading roles in the startup, with Cathal Ryan bringing his flying experience as a pilot while Declan Ryan offered financial expertise gained while working as an accountant.  

The early plan for the nascent airline was to tackle the issue of high airfares being charged to passengers flying across the Irish Sea between Ireland and the UK. The incumbent airlines (Aer Lingus and British Airways) enjoyed a virtual duopoly on routes between the Irish Republic and airports in Great Britain, with almost total freedom to fix their own airfares. Ryanair wanted to address this issue by offering cheaper fares than those being charged by legacy carriers while still offering a safe and reliable air service. 

Having been legally incorporated on November 28, 1984, Ryanair’s first flight took to the skies eight months later on July 8, 1985, using a single aircraft and 25 employees. The airline’s first aircraft was an Embraer EMB-110P1 Bandeirante, which was around five years old when it began operating for the airline. Registered as EI-BPI, the plane carried just 15 passengers and was dedicated to the airline’s only route, flying between Waterford (WAT), a regional airport in the south-east of Ireland, and London-Gatwick Airport (LGW). These early flights were operated the brand name ‘Ryanair Commuter’ with corresponding titles being worn on the side of the aircraft.

Ryanair’s first flights were offered at a return fare of just £99 ($126), which was less than half that being charged by Aer Lingus and British Airways. Predictably, the competitors soon began to drop their own fares in response to Ryanair’s arrival, in what became one of Europe’s first airline pricing wars. Ryanair flew around 82,000 passengers in its first year of operations on its single route, and having quickly established that it had a viable business model, soon looked to expand both its fleet and route network.  

Wishing to expand further across the Irish Sea, Ryanair moved its Waterford service to London-Luton Airport (LTN) to take advantage of the wide availability of slots at that airport while also benefitting from the large Irish community located north of London and well within Luton’s catchment area.  

In 1986, the airline’s sole Bandeirante was supplemented with the acquisition of two Rolls-Royce Dart-powered Hawker Siddeley HS 748s (registered EI-BSE and EI-BSF). The arrival of these new aircraft allowed Ryanair to start a new high-frequency service between Dublin (DUB) and Luton, operating several flights per day each way in peak travel periods.  

The addition of the larger turboprops proved to be a shrewd decision by Ryanair executives. Offering an increased capacity of three times that offered by the Embraer (46 seats versus 15) the airline soon saw its passenger numbers begin to rise substantially. The Bandeirante was eventually disposed of leaving Ryanair with the two HS748s for a short time, although these were supplemented by a Convair 580 leased from Norwegian airline Partnair for a few months.

However, new metal was on its way to allow the carrier to keep pace with the surging demand for its services. 

Ryanair enters the jet age 

To equip its fleet adequately to keep up with demand, in 1987, Ryanair entered the jet age for the first time. The company leased three BAC1-11 aircraft from TAROM Romanian Airlines. Seeing the success that large, faster jet aircraft could offer, these initial three aircraft were joined by a further three the following year. The 1-11s quickly became the new backbone of the Ryanair fleet, being used on all its major routes.  

Additionally, at the end of 1987, Ryanair took over the failing Luton-based airline London European Airways and relaunched the carrier as Ryanair Europe, operating flights from Luton to Amsterdam (AMS) and Brussels (BRU) using a single leased BAC 1-11.

In September 1988, Ryanair further bolstered its fleet by adding the first of four ATR42s that the airline would eventually operate. Eventually replacing the aging HS748s, all four ATR42s would be operating by 1991, allowing Ryanair to expand its route network further.  

By the early 1990s, the carrier was operating on 15 routes. Passengers originating in Dublin had the choice of flights to Cardiff (CWL), Glasgow (GLA), Liverpool (LPL), and Manchester (MAN). The airline also took the opportunity to expand at Luton, commencing new services to Galway (GWY), Cork (ORK), Shannon (SNN), and Knock (NOC), supplementing the existing services to Dublin and Waterford. By 1992, Ryanair had a fleet of 10 aircraft including six 1-11s and four ATR42s, along with almost 1,000 employees. 

Around this time, noting that certain routes were more profitable than others, the Ryanair directors began to become savvier in their future strategy. Noting how certain carriers in the United States (US) had reduced offering additional ‘frills’ onboard (such as free food and beverages) to reduce costs and increase revenues, Ryanair decided to scrap its two-class service (that had included a business class up until that point), along with its fledgling frequent flyer program.  

The airline also decided to follow the lead set by Southwest Airlines in the US by focusing its fleet on a single type of aircraft in the form of the BAC 1-11s, which resulted in the disposal of the ATRs. In 1990, the airline adopted what we would recognize today as a truly ‘low-cost’ model by ending all food and drink onboard. The transition to become one of Europe’s low-cost pioneers proved to be an astute one. 1991 became the airline’s first profitable year of operations, making £293,000 ($372,000) for the year. 

In the middle of 1991, the airline transferred its primary London operating hub from Luton to the newly developed and re-opened London-Stansted Airport (STN). Having spotted the capacity for substantial growth offered by the latter, along with a huge new terminal and excellent surface links to central London, Stansted would become and remains Ryanair’s largest hub across its Europe-wide network. 

With the switch to becoming a low-cost airline and concentrating on utilizing just one aircraft type, Ryanair’s continued growth was all but assured. Throughout the early 1990s, Tony Ryan and his assistant, Michael O’Leary, were building an airline, the strength and potential of which were increasing exponentially. Recognizing the real threat posed by the new disruptor, in 1993 Aer Lingus made a bold £25 million offer to buy Ryanair. However, spurred on by the audacity of this offer, Ryanair responded by overtaking both Aer Lingus and British Airways as the largest commercial carrier flying between Dublin and London at that time.  

European expansion and the arrival of Boeings  

In 1995, Ryanair decided to modernize its fleet by disposing of its BAC 1-11s and replacing them with used Boeing 737-200s. The addition of the larger planes, each seating 130 passengers, allowed Ryanair to fully exploit the newly liberalized air services policy across the European Union, known as ‘Open Skies’.  

In 1997, the carrier launched its first four European routes under the Ryanair brand, with new routes from both London-Stansted and Dublin. Stockholm-Bromma (BMA), Oslo-Torp, Paris-Beauvais (BVA), and Brussels-Charleroi (CRL) were the first European cities to be served, with others being quickly added to the network as more 737-200s joined the fleet. By the end of 1997, the airline had carried 3.73 million passengers in that year alone.  

In 1998, buoyed by the tremendous success it was seeing on its European network, along with how well the traveling public had taken to the introduction of the Boeing 737s, Ryanair took a giant leap of faith by ordering 45 Boeing 737-800s directly from the manufacturer at a cost of $2 billion. This was the first time that Ryanair carrier had placed orders for brand-new aircraft, and even at that time, was reported to have driven a hard bargain to secure the aircraft for as low a price as it could from Boeing. 

Seeing a growing trend for online sales via an emerging global phenomenon known as the Worldwide Web (later, the Internet), Ryanair launched its first website in January 2000 to coincide with the new millennium. Fellow airline easyJet had also launched its own website around the same time and was reporting remarkable results from the way that the public could now book air travel directly with an airline. Accepting online bookings meant carriers no longer had to pay commissions to travel agents, boosting their bottom lines enormously.  

The first Ryanair booking website was designed by 17-year-old schoolboys at a cost of just £20,000 ($25,400). While rudimentary in both its design and functionality, Ryanair was so convinced that the future of air travel lay in online bookings, that the company decided to cease dealing with travel agents entirely, and only accept bookings made via its website from that point on. 

Further growth and subsidiaries 

By 2002, the airline had firmly established itself on a course where a stratospheric year-on-year increase in passengers seemed guaranteed. With this firmly in mind, the original order for 45 Boeing 737-800s was increased to 125 airplanes, with further options for another 125. By the end of 2009, the airline was carrying around 67 million passengers annually, at an average fare of a mere €35 ($37). 

It was by this stage that the success of Ryanair’s quest for complete dominance of the European air travel market was assured. By 2010, the airline operated a fleet of 272 Boeing 737-800 aircraft and had opened new bases across Europe. By the end of that year, the airline had 44 bases and over 1,300 routes. 

In 2013, the company went on another shopping spree at Boeing, ordering a further 175 737-800s. However, within a year, this latest order had been increased to 183 Boeing 737-800 aircraft, with an additional order for 200 of the manufacturer’s newest version of the Boeing 737 family – the 737 MAX 8. The Ryanair order called for a new variant of the MAX 8 to be developed. Known as the 737 MAX 8200, with additional seats permitting over 200 passengers to be carried on each aircraft, the type was given the nickname ‘The Gamechanger’ by the airline. 

In 2015, marking 30 years of operations, Ryanair decided to step up its ambitions of becoming a truly pan-European airline group. In April 2018, the company launched a new Polish subsidiary known as Ryanair Sun, which it eventually rebranded as Buzz. The setting up of a new Polish-based airline helped Ryanair to lower its costs, as moving crew to a Polish company saved it money. The employees taken on by the new sister company were also employed as self-employed contractors with fewer rights and restructured pay levels. 

Ryanair’s second subsidiary was the UK-based Ryanair UK which began operations in December 2018. Ryanair UK was primarily formed to handle the potential complications posed by Brexit (the UK voting to leave the European Union) and the implications for UK operations for a European airline.  

Also in 2018, Ryanair took a shareholding in struggling Austrian carrier, Laudamotion, which it eventually took over entirely later that same year, renaming it Lauda Europe and relocating it to Malta. Although primarily an Airbus A320 operator, the acquisition of Laudamotion also provided the Ryanair Group with a further European AOC where it could set revised levels of pay and conditions.  

Not content with having AOCs in Ireland, the UK, Malta, and Poland, the Ryanair Group completed its European expansion program (for now, at least) by setting up another Maltese carrier – Malta Air. With the national carrier of Malta (Air Malta) faltering, the Maltese government set about to find a partner that could help it establish a new flag carrier for the Mediterranean island nation. Malta Air was born out of that exercise, with both the Maltese government and Ryanair taking shareholdings in the newly formed airline. 

Since then, the Maltese government has wound up Air Malta, although has since started a new national airline known as KM Malta Airlines. Meanwhile, Ryanair’s Malta Air has gone on to expand beyond just operating flights to the island, also operating on other routes and services on Ryanair’s behalf across Europe. 

While Buzz and Lauda Europe operate as separate entities, for branding and recognition in their home-grown markets, Malta Air forms a crucial part of the Ryanair Group machine. Malta as a nation offers companies various tax and other financial benefits. Therefore, having numerous aircraft operating on the Maltese register and based in Malta offers Ryanair numerous advantages.  

Ryanair today 

The Ryanair group of airlines has become unrecognizable from where it first started. From a single 15-seat turboprop to a giant European airline in just four decades. According to the airline’s own website, Ryanair currently serves 240 destinations across 35 countries and operates 3,600 daily flights.  

In 2023, the airline carried 181.8 million passengers, representing a staggering 13% growth in passenger numbers over 2022. Its average booked load factor also increased from 92% in 2022 to 94% in 2023. In December 2023 alone, Ryanair operated approximately 72,500 flights and carried a total of 12.54 million passengers – a 9% increase over December 2022.  

In terms of its fleet, according to ch-aviation, the Ryanair Group of airlines has an impressive 397 Boeing 737-800s currently on its books, alongside 142 Boeing 737 MAX 8200s. Lauda Europe has a current fleet of 28 Airbus A320s. The airline also has a further 68 MAX 8200s or order, along with 150 of the largest 737 variant – the 737 MAX 10.  

The company also has a single Boeing 737-700 in its fleet (registered SP-RUM) which serves a dual purpose. The company uses this plane primarily for crew training purposes, as pilots can be trained on this aircraft but are also able to operate the larger Boeing 737-800s and MAX 8200s when flying commercial sectors, due to the commonality between the types. When not being used for crew training, Ryanair often uses this aircraft to shuttle senior managers around the airline’s network. However, for a short spell in 2016, the plane was used for private corporate charters. The plane was configured with 60 business class leather seats which featured 48 inches of pitch in a four-abreast configuration. This venture was short-lived, however.

A little-known fact about Ryanair is that the carrier also has four LearJet 45s on its books. Registered M-ABEU, M-ABGV, M-ABJA, and M-ABRB, and with ages ranging from 12 to 21 years old, the planes are used primarily to fly engineers and spare parts around the Ryanair network. The small fleet allows for the carrier to deploy engineering services anywhere on the carrier’s network to deal with aircraft that are unable to operate due to technical issues. The Learjets are all leased from Isle of Man-based Aviation Leasing (IOM) Limited, hence their ‘M’ prefixed registrations.

In January 2024, to take advantage of issues affecting Boeing and its 737 MAX production line, Ryanair announced that it would also consider taking on any orders for Boeing 737 MAX 10s that might become available if US carriers cancel any of their orders for the type. United Airlines seems to be the most likely of these carriers, as it has 277 MAX 10s on order with options for a further 200. However, the airline is rumored to have begun negotiations with Airbus over a large A321neo order to replace these 737 MAX 10 orders.  

Conclusion 

In the 40 years since Tony Ryan, his sons, and his business partners first sat down to discuss starting an all-new Irish airline, the name Ryanair has become synonymous with low-cost air travel, not only within Europe but worldwide. From that single Embraer Bandeirante hopping across the Irish Sea with just 15 passengers in the mid-80s to the low-cost leviathan it has become today, Ryanair has certainly found its niche in global air travel.  

While traveling on the airline may not be to everyone’s taste and may often be the focus of scathing public criticism from time to time, the tumultuous success of the airline in just four decades cannot be ignored.  

Whether you love or loathe Ryanair, the company has undoubtedly become a remarkable success story in terms of pioneering low-cost air travel across Europe and beyond. And given its steadfast drive for success alongside a steely determination for market dominance, the enduring success story of Ryanair shows no sign of ending any time soon. 

Modern history and aviation go hand in hand, so almost every war museum also features a military aviation aspect. Some of these museums include the non-profit Pearl Harbour Aviation Museum in Hawaii, the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Museum in the United Kingdom, and the Aviation Heritage Museum in Western Australia.

Yokaren Shiryokan

However, not many know that there is a small museum more than 1,000 kilometers from Tokyo, tucked away on the island of Kyushu. 

Since 1988, Yokaren Shiryokan in Oita Prefecture has served as an archive museum of over 3,000 artifacts and personal items belonging to kamikaze pilots. 

Yokaren, in Japanese, translates to naval aviator trainees in the former Imperial Japanese Navy. In the latter part of the Second World War, some of these trainees signed up to be kamikaze pilots.

The museum was founded and privately owned by Kiichi Kawano, a former kamikaze attack unit member at Kisarazu Naval Air Group in Chiba Prefecture.

Just before Kawano was scheduled to depart for his suicide mission as a kamikaze pilot, the war came to an end.

In a 2015 interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Kawano said he only survived because he was scheduled to fly out the day after Japan’s surrender. 

“I felt like I failed to die. It was like coming second in a race. I was so disappointed and ashamed,” Kawano told ABC. 

“The gods had allowed me to live. I had to find a way to comfort the souls of my fellow dead pilots,” Kawano added.

To assuage the guilt of surviving, Kawano spent 30 years and $130,000 personally collecting artifacts to build an archive museum to honor his kamikaze brothers. He even renovated and transformed his own house into a museum. 

The museum, Kawano told ABC, is also a way to teach the younger generation that war should never happen again.

Most of the museum artifacts are made up of personal effects belonging to kamikaze pilots. These include letters left for loved ones to read before the pilots took off on their final flight, as well as diary entries. These personal items allowed the public to get a glimpse of intimate and candid thoughts of the kamikaze pilots. 

Here are excerpts from diary entries that showed how the kamikaze pilots tried to accept their fate in good humor. Kawano gave permission for the site Kamikaze Images to publish these in 2011. 

It was the evening of August 8. My senior in the 15th Otsu Class, Flight Chief Petty Officer Kiyoshi Tanaka, was scheduled to depart the next day, the 9th, on a special attack. He bumped his head against a column in front of me.

Petty Officer Tanaka said, “Kawano, that really hurt.”

“The instant you crash is no pain,” I said. We laughed together, and that was finished, but I guessed his feeling. Not able to do anything for that indescribable feeling, I only said, “Tanaka, since I will soon be going after you, please go before and wait for me.”

…

On August 13, the order was given for the 7th Mitate Unit 3rd Ryūsei Squadron to make a sortie on a special attack.

In that 3rd Ryūsei Squadron was Flight Chief Petty Officer Yoshiomi Nishimori, 16th Otsu Class, in the second plane of Section 1.

Petty Officer Nishimori, a few hours before his takeoff, surprised me when he called me and said, “Kawano, will you swap your flight suit with mine?”

I replied, “Nishimori, what’s got into you?”

He said, “On my trip to die I would like to go wearing your new flight suit. Exchange with me.”

Even though while thinking that I also would be leaving for a special attack in a few days, since it was my senior talking, I said, “Yes, I understand. Let’s swap. Please go while wearing my flight suit.” It was arranged that we would wear each other’s flight suit.

Since my own flight suit had become worn, I had gone to the quartermaster’s warehouse and had just exchanged it for a new one. I quickly took it off and exchanged my flight suit with the one worn by my senior in this squadron before mine that soon would take off for a special attack.

However, since our own names were written on the inside of each other’s jacket, it felt somewhat strange.

For the two of us destined eventually to cast ourselves into the southern sea, it probably did not matter at all whatever was inside the flight suits. Also, I told myself that it would probably be sufficient if we could exchange them in the next world. I laughed and sent him off.

In 2021, Kawano died at the age of 91. Since then, Kawano’s son, 68-year old Takayasu, has been running and managing the museum. 

Takayasu does not agree with the concept of kamikaze pilots. Still in his 50s then, Takayasu told ABC that sending young people to their deaths for Japan’s future was a “mistake”. 

Takayasu also found that managing the museum’s collection proved to be a complex process. 

Additionally, none of Takayasu’s own children or family members wanted to take over the museum.

In December 2023, Takayasu announced the decision to close Yokaren Shiryokan in 2024.

Guests will still be able to visit the museum until May 2024, the same month that a closing ceremony is scheduled to take place. Yoraken Shiryokan will officially close on August 14, 2024, just a year shy of the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. 

How kamikaze pilots began

Even though kamikaze pilots were only deployed in the latter years of the Second World War, they have made quite an impact not just in modern history, but popular culture.

The term kamikaze is now regularly used and recognized in casual English language. Just very recently, the actions of an off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot who tried to disable the engines of an aircraft mid-flight in October 2023 was described as an attempted “kamikaze attack” by the media. 

But how was the term originally coined? 

In Japanese, kamikaze is made up of two words: ‘kami’ which means ‘divinity’ or ‘divine’, and ‘kaze’, meaning ‘wind’.

The word is referenced in Japanese history and dates back to the 16th Century, when Mongol emperor Kublai Khan’s attempts to invade the country were thwarted by the gods who sent a heavenly wind that sank the Mongol fleet.  

In late 1944, American troops were closing in on Japan, seizing the country’s islands one by one. At that point, the Japanese had already lost several major battles and were struggling against the industrial power of the Allied forces. 

Kamikaze was a bold, radical, and desperate last-ditch strategy to save the Japanese empire. 

“Japan was faced by overwhelming American naval power. Increasingly unable to make effective air attacks against American ships, Japanese forces turned to suicide attacks, using pilots flying aircraft laden with bombs as improvised missiles, in the hope of destroying Allied ships at the cost of the aircraft, and the pilot’s life,” Ian Kikuchi, Senior Curator and Historian at London’s Imperial War Museums (IWM) said in an August 2023 IWM video presentation about kamikaze pilots. 

In June 1944, Captain Motoharu Okamura, the first officer to officially propose kamikaze tactics, began to research and plan the suicide pilot attacks.

By August 1944, the Japanese started training its pilots in Taiwan for the suicide missions.

The first recorded kamikaze attack against a US ship was in the morning of October 25, 1944 in Samar, in the Philippines.

At 10:53, a Mitsubishi A6M5 Zeke deliberately hit USS St. Lo (CVE-63), a survivor of the Battle off Samar. 100 Americans were killed and the escort carrier took less than an hour to sink. 

The success of this first mission encouraged and emboldened the losing Japanese forces to continue with the kamikaze method. 

How kamikaze pilots were recruited

The concept of honorable death and loyalty is intrinsic to Japanese culture. 

In the 12th century, Japanese Samurais performed “seppuku”, which is more popularly known as “harakiri”, a grisly act of fatally disemboweling oneself with a knife in the belief that it is more honorable to perish this way than to die under the hands of an enemy. 

This is known as “bushido” or “the way of the warrior”, a philosophy that places loyalty and honor above all, and not fearing death or dying in the name of valor. 

The code of bushido is deeply ingrained in Japanese history and culture, from samurais to its Second World War soldiers and businessmen. And in a more extreme way, it is reflected even in the underbelly dealings of the yakuza. 

When the Imperial Japanese Army recruited kamikaze pilots, it played on the emotions of the Japanese people, invoking the idea that serving as a kamikaze pilot would bring the highest honor to the empire. 

Recruitment was advertised in books and newspapers in a romanticized light and showed kamikaze pilots being treated as heroes before and after their missions.

High school girls waving cherry blossom branches to a kamikaze pilot before his mission. Wikipedia

Kamikaze recruits were also very young, mostly under the age of 24. The government ordered some universities to move graduations forward so that students could be drafted. 

An excerpt from ‘Kamikaze Diaries: Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers’ published by the University of Chicago Press in 2006 stated that once the recruits reached the training base, they were subjected to harsh corporal punishment on a daily basis. 

The site History Collection said that the cadets clearly understood that Japan was fighting a losing war. Rationalizing their own deaths, the cadets believed that sacrificing their lives for the sake of Japan’s survival would not be a total waste.

Above is a photo that shows how young the kamikaze pilots were. Wikipedia dated the photo to be taken on May 26, 1945. Holding the puppy is 17-year-old Corporal Yukio Araki, one of the youngest recruited kamikazes. Surrounding Araki are four other kamikaze pilots of the 72nd Shinbu Squadron at Bansei, Kagoshima.

On May 27, 1945, the day after the photograph was taken, Araki died during the Battle of Okinawa when he deliberately crashed his bomb-laden Mitsubishi Ki-51 into the USS Braine, a 21-ton Fletcher class destroyer.

Mitsubishi A6M2 ‘Zero’: the kamikaze pilot’s choice of aircraft

The kamikaze pilots used the Mitsubishi A6M2 as their choice of aircraft.

Nicknamed ‘Zero’, the A6M2 weighed 3,704 pounds when empty, making it one of the lightest fighter aircraft during the Second World War. 

Every weight-saving measure was incorporated in designing the A6M2. No armor protection was provided for the pilot, engine or other critical points of the aircraft. While this is normally considered a disadvantage, it served the purpose of kamikaze missions well.

The lighter weight also made it possible for the Japanese to modify the aircraft to accommodate 500-pound bombs, and still takeoff and fly long distances.

In total, nearly 10,430 A6M2s were built, with many of these converted to kamikaze craft in the closing months of the Second World War.

Was kamikaze a successful tactic?

Historical records showed that only 19% of kamikaze attacks were successful. As many pilots were young and hastily trained, the majority of the planes missed their targets and crashed into the sea. 

The Allied forces also learned from the first kamikaze attack in the Philippines. They positioned combat air patrols to protect carriers and intercept Japanese aircraft before they could reach the ships. The carriers were also equipped with anti-aircraft guns.

IWM’s Ian Kikuchi also said that the Allies used destroyers as radar pickets, small warships fitted with radar that are positioned about 20 miles from the main fleet. These ships provided early warning of incoming air raids. The downside, however, was that these small ships were exposed and subjected to attacks by the kamikaze. 

Kamikaze pilots during the Battle of Okinawa

Kamikazes were heavily used during the Battle of Okinawa, which lasted 82 days, from April 1 – June 22, 1945. In the months leading up to the Battle of Okinawa, islands that were taken over by Japan, such as Saipan, Guam, Tinian and Palau, were recaptured by the Allied forces and used as bases for heavy bombers to strike Japan’s home islands.

Unlike these Pacific islands, Okinawa is actually part of Japan, so the Allied forces looming in on the country’s southernmost Prefecture posed an incredible threat to the Japanese.

Kamikaze pilots became an integral part of the Japanese strategy in defending Okinawa. It was at this time that the Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka aircraft were deployed as kamikaze planes alongside the usual A6M2. 

The Okha (meaning cherry blossom in Japanese), is a rocket-powered human-guided kamikaze attack aircraft built by the Japanese solely for the purpose of being a Kamikaze plane.

Though the Okha was extremely fast, it could fly only a very short range. This means it had to be carried by a much larger bomber as a parasite aircraft. 

A total of 852 Okhas were built by the Japanese, but only a fraction of the planes were used in combat.

During its first combat sortie, 16 bombers carried one Okha, and was escorted by 30 A6M2s. The entire fleet was intercepted and destroyed by US Naval fighters.

Between April and June 1945, Japan flew more than 400 kamikaze sorties at Okinawa. And though the kamikazes played a significant role during the battle, it was not enough to defend Okinawa.

“Around 350 vessels were hit by kamikaze. 47 were sunk and the rest damaged. Of ships sunk, none were strategically important, and all could be replaced,” Kikuchi said. 

“When you hear of my death, be happy for me.”

When we read about kamikaze pilots, it’s easy to see them as crazed fanatics happy to die for their empire. 

Kamikaze pilots’ final letters to their families, such as those found in Yokaren Shiryokan, serve as a reminder that these young pilots were filled with love and affection for their families. 

One final letter from a kamikaze pilot to his family, published by Journal Storage, captures this sentiment. 

The letter saw Lieutenant Kishi Fumikazu to his family asking his brother and sister to give their mother the “love he cannot give”.

Fumikazu was killed in the Philippines on October 24, 1944 at age 22.

Dear Mother and Father, Brother and Sister,

End of autumn. The backyard must be filled with the cries of insects, as it is every year around this time. My heart is full to bursting with memories of the many evenings we spent talking together. I suppose you are all somewhat concerned about how I’m doing.

During my visit home in May, Sister said to me, “Ever since you joined up, Mother has been setting meals before your photograph. She’s given up drinking tea, and every evening she visits the shrine to pray for you.” I was so moved that I was unable to thank her. Mother really wore herself out at the farewell party the night before I left to join my unit. She was so busy preparing for my departure that she didn’t sleep at all the night before.

And on my sun flag, she wrote HAPPILY WAITING FOR A RETURNING CHILD. Whenever I can, I gaze at those four noble characters for the nourishment they give my soul. The fighting has become extremely intense, and there is no guarantee of my safe return. The image of all those poor school kids and everyone else singing war songs and waving a sea of flags as they saw us off to the front is burned indelibly into my mind. I firmly believe in the benevolence of the Emperor and of our parents. Mother seems to be growing weaker by the day. Brother and Sister, you will have to give her the love that I cannot.

Please forgive my impiety; I pray for the continued good health of you all. The three photo albums I sent the other day are keepsakes for Brother and Sister. Please don’t worry about me. When you hear of my death, be happy for me, for I will have achieved my ambition.

Goodbye.

The Solway Aviation Museum, near Carlisle in the UK, is hoping to raise $75,000 so that it can transport the last surviving RAF Blackburn Beverley airlifter to its new home.  

The money raised would see the plane dismantled and moved from its current location at Fort Paull in Hull, to Carlisle Lake District Airport (CAX) where the museum keeps a vast collection of historic aircraft. 

The airlifter has been stationed at Fort Paul, a former military museum, for 20 years but it was closed in 2020 putting the Blackburn Beverley’s future in jeopardy. 

The Beverley was bought at auction by businessman Martyn Wiseman for £21,000 but the costs to move the 35-ton aircraft became too much and he feared he would have to scrap the plane. 

“This is a last-gasp rescue mission for the Beverley, and once it is here it will form an important part of our collection of iconic British-made aircraft. Blackburn Beverley XP259 has faced an uncertain future since the closure of the small museum at Fort Paull in 2020,” Solway Aviation Museum Chairman, Dougie Kerr, said. 

==> Blackburn Beverley pic.twitter.com/09ywF5nZuE

— Harp Sanayisi (@HSanayisi) October 16, 2019

He added: “It was saved from the scrap man by a private individual, but the road towards finding it a new permanent home has proved difficult. With uncertainties continuing, the intervention by Solway Aviation Museum has at last provided an opportunity to see the Beverley saved as part of Britain’s heritage.” 

The Beverley was operated by the RAF Transport Command from 1957 until 1967 and was renowned for its bulbous shape, with a large ‘belly’ used for transporting large bulk loads or troops. 

The aircraft is the last of the original 49 that were built. 

You can donate to the fundraiser appeal here. 

Through the years, the incident has become known as “The Andes flight disaster” or “The miracle of the Andes” due to the remarkable story of human survival.

In 1993, Paramount Pictures released a drama film directed by Frank Marshall based on the tragedy called ‘Alive’. The movie starred Ethan Hawke and was narrated by John Malkovich.

The most recent portrayal of the tragedy made its way to Netflix in 2023, 30 years after ‘Alive’ hit the big screen.

The latest adaptation has garnered much praise, with many reviews claiming that it depicted the incident more accurately, given that photography and filming was shot in Sierra Nevada, Spain; Montevideo, Uruguay; Chile and Argentina, and included the actual crash site in the Andes. 

The cast was also composed of Spanish-speaking actors, giving the film a more authentic feel than its Hollywood counterpart. 

Since ‘Society of the Snow’ was released on Netflix on January 4, 2024, the internet has been rife with articles revisiting the incident, in particular how the survivors managed to stay alive for more than two months. Their story of survival is harrowing and remarkable to say the least. 

But as aviation enthusiasts, we have a number of questions about the incident. What really caused the plane to crash? Was it due to bad weather or pilot error? And why did the rescue take so long? 

AeroTime takes a closer look at the incident and provides those answers and more.

What aircraft was used?

The aircraft was a four-year old Uruguayan Air Force Fairchild FH-227D (a version of the Fokker F27 Friendship). 

It featured a 1.83 m (six ft) stretch over standard-length F27/F-27s, taking the standard 32 seating to 56, with a larger cargo area between the cockpit and the passenger cabin.

The FH-227 was powered by 1678kW Rolls-Royce Dart RDa.7 Mk 532-7 turboprop engines.

A total of 78 FH-227 aircraft were built, 23 of which ended up involved in a crash The Andes flight disaster was the 10th FH-227 crash in 42 years. 

The last incident took place in January 2002 when a FH-227E belonging to the aviation unit of Petroproducción, a subsidiary of the Ecuadorian state-owned Petroecuador oil company flew off-course and into the 4,500 meter-high Cerro El Tigre mountain, killing all 21 passengers and five crew members.

And while the Andes disaster can be considered the most high-profile among the crashes, it was not the worst. 

On June 12, 1982, a twin-engined Fairchild FH-227B (registered in Brazil as PT-LBV) operated by the now-defunct airline TABA (Transportes Aéreos Regionais da Bacia Amazônica), crashed into a car park, killing everyone on board.

The plane was conducting a flight between Eirunepé Airport (ERN) and Tabatinga International Airport (TBT) when it struck a lighting tower on approach to Tabatinga. The plane crashed into the car park and exploded, killing all 44 on board. The incident was not only the worst aviation disaster in TABA’s history, but the most fatal to involve a Fairchild FH-227.

Timeline and path of flight 571

Flight 571 was a chartered flight carrying members of the Old Christians Club rugby team, along with some of their friends and family, from Montevideo Airport (MVD) to Santiago Airport (SCL) in Chile. In total, 45 people were on board the plane. 

The aircraft departed Montevideo Airport on October 12, 1972. However, a storm front over the Andes forced them to stop overnight in Mendoza, Argentina.

The FH-227 was not built to fly higher than approximately 22,500 feet (6,900 meters), so the pilots plotted a course south to the Pass of Planchón, where the aircraft could safely clear the Andes. 

The following day, the flight took off from Mendoza Airport (MDZ) at 14:18 local time. 

The plane flew south from Mendoza towards Malargüe radio beacon at FL180. The flight radioed Malargüe Airport (LGS) with their position and told the airport that they would reach the Planchón Pass at 15:21 local time.

The intention was to fly a U-shaped path, first across the pass to the Curicó radio beacon and to head north, and then descend towards Santiago. 

However, due to a navigational error, the flight crew mistakenly believed that they had already reached Curicó and began to descend. The flight’s actual location was still about 80 kilometers east of Curico, in the mountainous Planchon Pass. 

This was the fatal error that ultimately led to the FH-227 plummeting into the Andes.

Why did flight 571 crash?

One of the most prominent questions, and one all aviation enthusiasts are likely to want to know the answer to, is this: could the crash have been prevented?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. 

While bad weather was a contributing factor, investigations concluded that pilot error led to the crash.

41-year old Dante Héctor Lagurara was a lieutenant colonel in the Uruguayan Air Force, and was co-pilot of the Fairchild 571 aircraft. He was in control of the aircraft at the time of the accident. 

Lagurara failed to see that the instrument readings showed the aircraft was still about 70 kilometers east of Curico. Thinking they had already reached Curico, Lagurara radioed air traffic control, which gave him permission to descend from 18,000 to 11,500 ft.

During the descent, Lagurara regained visual flight conditions and caught sight of the aircraft’s close proximity to the mountains. Despite frantic attempts to gain altitude, it was too late and the FH-227 struck a mountain ridge, shearing off both wings and the tail cone. What remained of the fuselage slid down a glacier at an estimated 350 km/h (220 mph), descending 725 meters (2,379 ft) before ramming into an ice and snow on a glacier.

According to Sociedad dela Nieve, a website dedicated to the plight of all onboard flight 571, Lagurara did not initially die on impact. He was badly injured and trapped in the wreck of the cockpit. The pilot, Colonel Julio César Ferradas, died upon impact. 

Lagurara told the survivors, who had been trying to get him out of the wreckage, to find his pistol and shoot him. But the request was denied. 

Before he died from his injuries on October 14, 1972, Lagurara told the survivors that they had already passed Curico, information that we now know is incorrect. The information caused confusion among the survivors when they were planning which way to trek for help.

Why did the rescue of flight 571 take so long?

The 16 survivors were rescued on December 22, 1972. They managed to stay alive in harsh conditions for 72 days. While that was indeed remarkable, it does beg the question of why it took so long for them to be rescued.

Extreme weather conditions and the erroneous report of its location made it extremely difficult to locate the aircraft. That year, the Andes had a record for snowfall, the most it had in decades.

After losing contact with the FH-227 on October 13, 1972, Pudahuel airport immediately notified the Air Rescue Service stationed at the other airport in Santiago: Los Cerrillos (ULC).

The Chilean Air Rescue Service began its search from the last reported position given by the flight’s co-pilot: the Curicó corridor to Angostura and Santiago. The team initially searched in sparse and less populated regions, thinking that if the plane was somewhere in a town or city, news of its crash would have broken out.

After a thorough analysis of all available information, the search team concluded that the plane was not in the reported position when the flight team last contacted the control tower. 

Aware of the co-pilot’s miscalculation, the search team collated a list of all the possible areas where the plane could be.

Another challenge that hindered the rescue was that the aircraft’s roof was painted white, making it almost impossible to locate from a distance.

According to Sociedad de la Nieve, the international rescue standard during the time was to search for a plane crash for 10 days. There were a couple of days (October 17 and 18) where the search had to be suspended due to extreme weather conditions which made it impossible to fly over the mountain range.

As days went by without any leads or signs of the missing aircraft, hope of finding the survivors gradually diminished. The search team concluded that if there were survivors from the crash, they would likely perish due to the harsh weather conditions and environment. 

On October 21, 1972, the search team announced that it was officially ending its initial search and rescue efforts to locate flight 571 due to the complexity of the operation and extreme weather. The plan was to resume the search in January 1973, this time to search for remains of the passengers. 

According to the History Channel, the survivors were aware of this. The group found a transistor radio that fortunately worked. They listened intently as Chilean news announced that the search had officially ended. 

The History Channel reported that the following conversation took place among the survivors:

“Hey boys!” one of them shouted to the rest of the survivors. “There’s good news. They’ve called off the search.”

“Why the hell is that good news?” yelled one in response.

“Because it means we’re going to get out of here on our own.”

Realizing that survival rested in their own hands, the survivors set off on arduous treks to seek help. It was on the third expedition that they found success.

A total of 16 people survived out of the 45 that were onboard the flight.

A museum dedicated to the crash, Museo Andes 1972, is located in The Old City in Montevideo, Uruguay. 

Relics and pieces from the wreckage such as letters, pieces of the fuselage, photographs and memorabilia can be found in the museum.

Do you think a crash like Flight 572 could happen with today’s advanced aviation technology and equipment? 

The signals detected by Romeo and his team correspond to that of an aircraft-shaped object resting on the seabed at a depth of 16,500 feet (approximately 5,000 meters). However, it is impossible to determine this for certain as the signals could also correspond to other objects or even rocks. 

In July 1937, Amelia Earhart, perhaps the most famous female aviator of all time, disappeared without trace in the South Pacific alongside with co-pilot Fred Noonan. The pair had been attempting to complete an around-the-world journey in a Lockheed 10E Electra aircraft. 

This unsolved mystery has led to multiple theories ranging from the possibility they were captured by Japanese forces to the idea that they ran out of fuel over the ocean as they were attempting to reach Howland Island, a tiny attoll located in the central Pacific Ocean. 

A thorough search of the area was conducted by the United States Navy at the time of her disappearance. Other researchers tried to find clues about Earhart and Noon’s fate in the decades since, but all attempts had been in vain.  

Romeo, a former US Air Force pilot and entrepreneur from South Carolina, sold most of his assets to finance his own search expedition for Earhart. This included the purchase of a Hugin 6000 sea drone from Norwegian firm Kongberg. This $9 million piece of equipment features one of the most advanced sonars available on the market, capable of reaching the abyssal depths of the Pacific Ocean. 

Romeo has confirmed that he is planning another expedition later this year to continue investigating the new lead, hoping to find the location of Earhart’s plane nearly 90 years after its disappearance. 

Background

On January 8, 1989, British Midland Flight 92 was a scheduled passenger service flying from London-Heathrow Airport (LHR) to Belfast International Airport (BFS) in Northern Ireland. The flight was operated by a Boeing 737-400 that had only been delivered factory-fresh to the airline in October 1988 – less than three months earlier. 

The United Kingdom (UK), as well as the rest of the world, was still in shock following the loss of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland just three weeks previously. No one would have expected to see another fatal accident involving a passenger airliner in the UK in such quick succession.   

The aircraft involved, registered G-OBME, had undertaken its first flight on October 6, 1988, from the Boeing final assembly facility located in Renton, Washington. The plane was the first of eight 737-400s to be acquired by British Midland and was equipped with a pair of CFM International CFM56 turbofan engines. 

Delivered to the airline just nine days after its first flight, the aircraft was configured in an all-economy layout featuring 156 seats and had been operating for British Midland for just 12 weeks at the time of the crash. The aircraft was destroyed in the accident that befell Flight 92 and was subsequently written off. At the time of the accident, the airframe had accumulated just 521 flying hours in total. 

The crew of Flight 92 had a combined total of around 16,500 flight hours, including approximately 1,000 in the 737. The aircraft itself had already made one uneventful round-trip flight between London and Belfast earlier that day. The flight had 118 passengers and eight crew members onboard – two pilots and six cabin crew. 

Flight 92 departed Heathrow at 19:52 local time for its hour-long flight to Belfast. The aircraft was in the process of climbing to its intended cruising altitude of 35,000 feet when passing through 28,000 feet, the outer panel of one of the fan blades in the plane’s left hand (number 1) engine detached.  

This event caused significant vibration throughout the airframe and a sudden “audible pounding noise” in the passenger cabin. Those seated towards the rear of the cabin also reported seeing sparks and smoke emanating from the failed, left-hand engine and a burning smell. Shortly afterward, smoke began entering the cabin via the aircraft’s air conditioning vents.  

However, upon misreading the engine instruments in the flight deck, the pilots believed that it was the right-hand (number 2) engine that had been damaged, and subsequently throttled it back to reduce the vibrations.  

Upon the engine failure and following immediate emergency actions, the flight crew radioed the company’s operations department for further advice. It was agreed that Flight 92 should make an emergency diversion to East Midlands Airport (EMA) in Leicestershire. The airport not only happened to be close to the company’s headquarters but also the site of its primary UK maintenance base. Conveniently, the airport was almost directly under the aircraft’s flight path to Belfast that evening.  

Flight 92 was cleared for an approach to runway 27 at East Midlands. However, having commenced its descent into East Midlands and with the aircraft’s airspeed decaying, the Ground Proximity Warning Syste m (GPWS) in the flight deck issued several aural ‘glideslope’ warnings, indicating that the plane had deviated below the glideslope for runway 27.  

At just 900 feet, 2.4nm from the runway threshold, the (already damaged) left-hand engine suddenly suffered a decrease in power. As the airspeed fell below 125 knots, the stick shaker activated indicating to the pilots the imminent onset of a stall.   

Impact and aftermath

At 20:24 and traveling at 115 knots, the aircraft’s rear fuselage, tail, and landing gear struck trees on the eastern bank of the M1 motorway – one of the busiest in the UK. The plane then bounced back into the air and impacted the rising ground on the western embankment of the motorway. The aircraft immediately broke into three sections on impact, having landed almost 2,950ft (900 meters) short of the runway. 

With such violent horizontal forces acting upon the passenger cabin in the impact, 39 passengers died instantly, while a further eight succumbed to their injuries following the crash landing. Fortuitously, there were no injuries or fatalities to anyone driving on the motorway at the time of the crash. Indeed, the proximity of the motorway provided excellent access for the emergency services that quickly arrived at the scene. 

In addition to the 47 immediate fatalities in the crash, 74 of the remaining 79 passengers and crew suffered serious injuries. Both pilots survived, although the first officer suffered life-changing injuries. The crash became one of the UK’s deadliest air disasters and remains the UK’s last fatal accident involving a UK-registered passenger airliner.  

Investigation and findings 

The accident report concerning Flight 92 was published by the UK’s Air Accident Investigation Branch in August 1990. The investigation and subsequent report attributed the cause of the accident to pilot error.  

The AAIB investigators discovered that despite the failure of the left-hand engine, the crew had throttled back and then subsequently shut down the serviceable right-hand engine. Having reduced the airframe vibrations by taking this action, the pilots believed they had dealt with the engine issue appropriately. However, they had inexplicably shut down the one serviceable engine and were erroneously relying on the failed left-hand engine to get them safely to East Midlands.   

It transpired that the right-hand engine in previous 737 variants flown by both pilots supplied the air used for the passenger cabin’s air conditioning system. Given the reports of smoke in the cabin from cabin crew members, the pilots decided to shut down the engine that they believed corresponded to this airflow. 

However, unknown to the pilots was that Boeing had redesigned the air conditioning system on the 737-400 to use bleed air from both engines for the air conditioning. Exacerbating the issue was that although passengers had seen sparks and smoke from the left-hand engine, this vital information was never relayed to the pilots.  

According to the AAIB report, the crew had “reacted to the initial engine problem prematurely and in a way that was contrary to their training.” Additionally, the pilots also failed to “assimilate the indications on the engine instrument display before shutting down the healthy engine.”  

The report also stated that when the first officer was asked by the captain which engine was causing the trouble, he responded: “It’s the le … it’s the right one.” The captain responded by saying “OK, throttle it back.” 

While many of those on board Flight 92, including three members of the cabin crew, had witnessed flames from the left-hand engine, no one had informed the pilots. This was despite the captain making a cabin announcement explaining (albeit erroneously) that the fault lay with the right-hand engine. The AAIB report called this “extremely unfortunate”. 

Remarkably, the damaged left-hand engine continued to provide limited thrust until the aircraft was just under three miles from the runway threshold. But as the pilots called for an increase in power from the damaged engine on short finals, it also failed, leaving no time to try to restart the right-hand serviceable (but shut down) engine. 

With the aircraft struggling to fly on just one damaged engine at this critical phase of flight, the left-hand engine was now unable to supply sufficient forward thrust to sustain flight and the aircraft stalled, leading to the impact with the motorway embankment. 

Improvements implemented following Flight 92 

The accident involving British Midland Flight 92 led to several recommendations for both operators of the 737-400 and the wider global airline industry.

Almost immediately following the accident, Boeing issued amendments to the 737-400 operations manual issued to all pilots qualified on the type. These changes related to the aircraft’s air conditioning system as well as emergency procedures when diagnosing a possible engine failure. 

Other recommendations also focused on pilot training with more emphasis on better coordination between cabin crew and those in the flight deck. The AAIB report also recommended improvements to the standard “brace” emergency position to be assumed by passengers, as well as the need to highlight the brace position diagrams on the emergency cards provided to each passenger and during the passenger safety briefing. 

Additional recommendations made by the AAIB included the need for more frequent engine inspections, and more robust overhead stowage bins, as many of these had become dislodged during the impact causing severe head trauma among many of the fatally injured passengers.  

Lastly, the report called for air traffic controllers and pilots to always use a separate radio frequency when dealing with an aircraft emergency. 

One recommendation which has not led to change was for “aft-facing passenger seats”. Although this had once been a common feature on early passenger aircraft, the concept has not been widely revived following the accident involving Flight 92 as many might have hoped. 

The Lightweight Fighter program

The F-16’s development was a response to the Lightweight Fighter program, which had identified an increasing need for a nimble and adaptable fighter jet that could excel in various roles, from air-to-air combat to ground attack missions. The team at General Dynamics, led by engineer Harry Hillaker, conceived a design that emphasized lightweight construction, advanced avionics, and a powerful engine.

The F-16’s distinctive features included its bubble canopy, giving the pilot exceptional visibility, and a single-engine design that allows for impressive maneuverability. Its innovative fly-by-wire control system, a first for a production fighter aircraft, played a pivotal role in enhancing its agility and responsiveness.

An accidental maiden flight

The F-16 prototype, known as the YF-16, was undergoing preparation by the United States Air Force 6510th Test Wing for its inaugural flight, with several taxiing tests needed to ensure the aircraft’s readiness. During these tests, the goal was simple: make the YF-16 roll at high speed without incident. However, as Œstricher pushed the throttle, the aircraft reached 240 kilometers per hour, experiencing unexpected rolling oscillations.

Recognizing the potential risk to the prototype, Œstricher made a swift decision. Rather than risk a catastrophe, he chose to go a little further, lifting the nose of the YF-16. In an unplanned turn of events, the aircraft left the tarmac and took to the skies, achieving an unplanned maiden flight.

The impromptu flight lasted only six minutes, but it left a lasting impact. After a quick return to the base, the prototype underwent studies to address the unexpected oscillations. Despite concerns of a delayed “official” first flight, the F-16 took to the skies again on February 2, 1974, with Œstricher at the controls.

Since its unexpected debut, the F-16 has become one of the most successful and widely used fighter jets globally. Entering service in 1979, the F-16 has seen numerous iterations and remains in production at Lockheed Martin. With over 4,500 units produced and approximately 3,000 still in active service, the F-16 continues to be a symbol of versatility and excellence in the world of military aviation.

Here, we delve into its capabilities and explore the reasons behind the F-15’s enduring production since 1972, unpacking exactly what makes it so noteworthy. 

Origins and development of F-15 

The roots of the F-15 Eagle can be traced back to the late 1960s when the United States Air Force (USAF) sought a superior air-to-air fighter. In 1969, after evaluating various proposals, the USAF chose the design put forth by McDonnell Douglas.  

This marked the birth of the F-15, an all-weather tactical fighter jet featuring twin engines and designed to outclass any potential adversary. It was one of the first fighter jets to be designed according to the air superiority doctrine (as opposed to interceptors) of the USAF. 

The initial versions of the Eagle comprised the single-seat F-15 and the twin-seat training TF-15 variants. Following the maiden flight of the F-15C, the designations were renamed F-15A and F-15B. The aircraft were equipped with new Pratt & Whitney F100 engines, achieving a combat thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding 1:1 allowing them to pitch straight up while maintaining airspeed. 

The inaugural flight of the F-15A took place on July 27, 1972, with the two-seat F-15B completing its maiden flight a year later.  The aircraft entered service in January 1976. 

Design and technology 

The F-15 features a semi-monocoque fuselage constructed from all-metal materials, complemented by a substantial cantilever and shoulder-mounted wing. It can make sharp turns without losing speed because of its low weight-to-wing area ratio and a high thrust-to-weight ratio, making it highly maneuverable. The F-15 is also the fastest fighter jet in US service in terms of deployed aircraft.  

It can ascend to 30,000 feet (9,100 meters) in approximately 60 seconds and fly for about 3,450 miles (5,550 kilometers) without refueling. When flying at specific speeds, the combined thrust of its dual engines exceeds the aircraft’s combat weight and drag, allowing it to accelerate vertically. 

The F-15 is also equipped with a ‘look-down/shoot-down’ radar capable of distinguishing moving targets close to the ground amidst background noise. In contrast to the F-14 Tomcat or F-4 Phantom, the F-15 has a single canopy frame, providing the pilot with an unobstructed 360° field of view. 

The F-15 even demonstrated its ability to maintain controlled flight with just one wing during a mid-air collision involving an Israeli F-15D in 1983. Despite losing most of the starboard wing, the pilot adapted swiftly, mastering the techniques required to fly and safely land the aircraft. 

The F-15 comes with a versatile avionics system, featuring a head-up display (HUD), advanced radar, inertial guidance, flight instruments, high-frequency communications, and navigation systems. Additionally, it includes an internal electronic warfare system, friend-or-foe identification, electronic countermeasures, and a central digital computer. 

The visible-in-any-light HUD display gives the pilot essential information for tracking and eliminating an enemy aircraft without the need to divert attention to cockpit instruments. 

Operational history 

One of the remarkable feats of the F-15 is its flawless combat record of 104 victories, never having lost a dogfight or been shot down in combat. The aircraft took part in the Gulf War during Operation Desert Shield and the Yemen Civil War. This unparalleled success has solidified its reputation as an air superiority juggernaut. 

Despite the F-15 being primarily designed for the USAF, it was the Israeli Air Force (IAF) that made the most use of its capabilities. IAF ace Moshe Melnik achieved the first F-15 kill in 1979. In total, IAF pilots have achieved more than 50% of F-15 kills. Israel was also the first operator to develop and use the air-to-ground capabilities of the air-superiority F-15 variants, leveraging its extended range compared to other IAF aircraft. 

An F-15 nicknamed ‘Celestial Eagle‘ made history on September 13, 1985, by destroying a satellite called Solwind P78-1. It was the first and only time a jet achieved an air-to-space kill. 

The F-15 has continually adapted to contemporary challenges, maintaining relevance in modern conflicts. Its versatility has allowed it to evolve with advancements in technology, ensuring that it remains a critical asset in the ever-changing landscape of aerial warfare.

Variants and current operators 

Here are the most significant variants of the F-15, both in terms of prominence and the number of aircraft built: 

• F-15A: The single-seat all-weather air-superiority fighter version, of which 384 units were built between 1972 and 1979. Retired on 16 September 2009. 
• F-15B: Built and retired together with F-15A. Two-seat training version with 61 units built. 
• F-15C: Enhanced as a single-seat, all-weather air-superiority fighter version, a total of 483 units were manufactured between 1979 and 1985. 
• F15D: Two-seat training version, 92 units built together with F15C. 
• F-15J: Manufactured as a single-seat, all-weather air-superiority fighter version specifically for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force, a total of 139 units were built from 1981 to 1997. 
• F-15E Strike Eagle: Developed as a two-seat, all-weather multirole strike version, equipped with additional fuel tanks. With over 500 F-15E and derivative variants manufactured since 1985, this model remains in active production. 

The United States, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Israel, Qatar, South Korea, and Singapore continue to operate various above-mentioned F-15 variants. 

Note: This list excludes prototypes and research/test aircraft. 

Specifications of F-15C 

General: 

Performance: 

Price 

At the start of 2021, the USAF took delivery of its first pair of F-15EX fighter-bombers, a procurement initiated in mid-2020. Each aircraft was priced at $80 million, representing a more cost-effective option when compared to the F-35. 

As of today, the estimated unit cost of the F-15EX is around $117 million.  

Future ahead for the F-15  

Despite over 50 years of active service since its introduction, the F-15 remains an integral part of the USAF and allied forces globally. Its enduring legacy is set to continue with the introduction of the F-15EX Eagle II version. 

Enhancements for this comprise the AMBER (Advanced Missile and Bomb Ejector Rack) system that accommodates up to 22 air-to-air missiles, infrared search and track capabilities, advanced avionics, electronic warfare equipment, an AESA radar (active electronically scanned array), and a modified structure designed for a service life of 20,000 hours. 

The F-15 Eagle is expected to be in service with the USAF at least until the 2030s with newer models being produced for foreign customers. 

F-16 Fighting Falcon: multi-role fighter aircraft and its history

• Aircraft
• Aviation History
• Defense

ByRosita Mickeviciute

May 15, 2023

Join us as we soar through time, starting at 10th place and ascending towards the pinnacle of flight achievement – the most produced aircraft of all time. But before we start going up our list let’s look at the other two most produced narrow-body airliners. 

Honorable mentions: Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 

Most produced commercial airliner: Boeing 737 

The Boeing 737 is a widely recognized commercial airliner that first took flight in 1967. Created by the American aerospace company Boeing, the 737 series has seen remarkable success, with over 11,660 units produced to date. It is celebrated for its versatility, reliability, and widespread use in the aviation industry, making it the most produced commercial airliner in history. 

Revolutionizing commercial aviation: Airbus A320 

The Airbus A320 is another prominent commercial airliner. Developed by the European aerospace manufacturer Airbus, the A320 series has achieved significant production numbers, with over 11,263 units manufactured. It is celebrated for its advanced technology, fuel efficiency, and contribution to modernizing air travel, establishing itself as one of the most produced commercial airliners in aviation history.

Now, let’s begin our countdown of the Top 10 most produced aircraft in aviation history.  

10. Polikarpov Po-2: biplane brilliance 

Our countdown commences with the Polikarpov Po-2, the most produced biplane ever. With a production range between 20,000 to 30,000 units, this Soviet multirole soared through the skies from 1928 to 1952.  

It found extensive utility in training, liaison, reconnaissance and ground-attack missions. It was also used in Poland as well. While production ceased in the Soviet Union by 1953, licensed CSS-13s variant continued to roll off Polish assembly lines until 1959. 

9. Focke-Wulf Fw 190: a fighter’s legacy 

In the ninth spot is the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, German single-seat fighter aircraft. With a production count of 20,051 units, this fighter aircraft left a significant impact on aerial combat during WW2. Its operation span from 1939 to 1945, even witnessing a post-war chapter with 64 units produced in France as the ‘NC 900’. 

One of the Fw 190’s most striking features was its innovative radial engine, which contributed to the aircraft’s distinctive and menacing appearance. This distinctive design, combined with aerodynamics, gave the Fw 190 a competitive edge in combat situations, allowing it to outmaneuver and outperform many of its adversaries. 

8. Piper J-3 Cub: a fabric-covered wonder 

Flying into eighth place is the Piper J-3 Cub which today stands as a true embodiment of a vintage aviation. With 20,191 units produced, this fabric-covered welded steel frame fuselage monoplane graced the skies from 1938 to 1947, produced mainly in the United States (US) with 150 units being crafted on Canadian soil. Interestingly, variants, such as the L-4, O-59, TG-8, and NE, expanded their capabilities beyond civilian aviation.  

7. Supermarine Spitfire/Seafire: British aviation legend 

Our countdown reaches the seventh spot, presenting the legendary Supermarine Spitfire/Seafire. With a production count of 22,685, this British fighter aircraft was one of the planes manufactured continuously throughout the war. Active from 1938 to 1948, its agility and design were instrumental in shaping the aerial theater of WW2.  

Notably, its Seafire variants introduced carrier-based operations through the introduction of tailhooks. By doing so and adapting to carrier-based operations, the Seafire expanded the aircraft’s reach and demonstrated its adaptability in maritime contexts. 

6. Cessna 182: utility beyond bounds 

Claiming sixth place here is the Cessna 182, a utility aircraft that transcended expectations. With production around 24,000 units and climbing, this versatile aircraft, active since 1956, has found admirers worldwide. Cessna 182s are manufactured in Kansas, US, by Reims Aviation. 

What truly sets the Cessna 182 apart is its exceptional versatility. Designed with adaptability in mind, it has proven itself time and again in a multitude of roles, ranging from personal and business travel to aerial surveying, law enforcement and even skydiving operations. 

5. Cessna 150 / 152: two-seater excellence 

Flying high in fifth place, the Cessna 150 / 152 secures its position with a production count of over 31,000 units between 1958 and 1986. A true marvel, it’s civil aviation’s most produced two-seat aircraft in terms of production volume.

Interestingly, it has also earned a reputation as one of the most popular aircraft for flight training. Its straightforward handling characteristics, stability, and forgiving flight envelope have made it a preferred choice for flight schools around the world. 

4. Piper PA-28 Cherokee: elevating utility and training 

In the fourth spot, the Piper PA-28 series, a testament to utility and training. With a production tally exceeding 32,778 units, this versatile aircraft family has been active since 1960.  

As with the aforementioned Cessna 150 / 152, the PA-28 Series is enduringly popular among flight schools and training institutions. The PA-28’s cockpit ergonomics and user-friendly avionics contribute to an optimal learning environment, making it an ideal aircraft for introducing newcomers to the complexities of flight. 

3. Messerschmitt Bf 109: a fighter’s legacy 

Third place is claimed by the Messerschmitt Bf 109, a fighter legend that has earned its stripes in history. With a production count of 34,852 units, this German aircraft took to the skies between 1936 and 1958, playing a pivotal role in WW2 as the backbone of the German Luftwaffe’s fighter force. It saw action in numerous theaters, including the Battle of Britain, the Eastern Front, North Africa and the Mediterranean. 

It is also the fighter aircraft with the highest production count and a single-seat cockpit configuration. Its influence extended across borders, with production taking place in various nations, including Romania, Spain, Hungary, Switzerland, and Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 

2. Ilyushin Il-2: the ground-attack aircraft 

Approaching the zenith of our countdown, the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik, a ground-attack aircraft. With a staggering production figure of 36,183 units, this Soviet plane earned the accolades of being the most produced combat aircraft, most produced low-wing aircraft, and the most produced aircraft of WW2. 

One of the most distinctive features of the Il-2 Sturmovik was its armor protection. Designed to withstand enemy fire, the aircraft’s pilot and vital components were heavily armored, giving it exceptional survivability in the hazardous environment of ground attack missions. This focus on protection contributed to Il-2’s reputation for being a ‘flying tank’. 

1. Cessna 172 Skyhawk: the ultimate flight companion 

Right at the top of our countdown stands the Cessna 172 Skyhawk. With a record-breaking production count exceeding 44,000 units and climbing, this aircraft reigns as the most produced commercial aircraft in history. From 1956 to the present, its rich legacy reflects its unwavering popularity and status as the ultimate flight companion for generations of aviators. 

The Cessna 172 holds the world record for the longest continuous flight without landing for a single-engine aircraft. The record flight, lasted over 64 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes, and 5 seconds. This remarkable achievement, conducted by Robert Timm and John Cook in 1958, serves to highlight the aircraft’s endurance and reliability. 

To sum up 

As we conclude our flight through aviation history, we note that the Top 10 most produced aircraft have demonstrated their enduring impact and significance. From biplanes to fighters, each aircraft on this list has left an indelible mark, shaping the course of aviation. Through these remarkable machines, we celebrate the ingenuity, dedication, and determination that have propelled humanity’s journey through the heavens. 

If it ain’t Boeing – I ain’t going is quite a bold statement. However, consider the context at the time. This was the beginning of the jet age – with the de Havilland Comet becoming a synonym for “mid-air explosion”, the Boeing 707 came at the right time.

McDonnell Douglas and SUD were lagging behind and introduced their DC-8 and Caravelle jet aircraft a year later than the 707. The Tupolev Tu-104 was behind the iron curtain. Because of this, it had no chance to impact anything culturally outside the Soviet sphere of influence.

Thus, this allowed the Boeing 707 to become an icon and symbol of a new and revolutionary way of travel.

Culturally, October 17^th, 1958 was the day that the jet age began in the minds of everyone. Or maybe restarted?

Anyhow, let’s roll back a bit and conceptualize what are the reasons why the 707 become such an icon.

A first Boeing with a jet engine

The first reason was that the Boeing 707 was a jetliner. At the time, the only commercial jets were flying behind the Iron Curtain. The de Havilland Comet was grounded after a series of crashes. That is why, when Boeing 707 introduced a reliable and safe jet-powered aircraft, it certainly did change the way we travel.

As I have previously already talked about the jet engines and the reasons why they will definitely replace piston jets in the Tupolev Tu-104 story, I won’t go too much into detail. To summarize, there were three reasons:

• Piston-powered engines were coming to their maximum as to how much power they can produce. To squeeze more, engineers made them more complex and that is the reason why maintenance costs shot up. Fuel consumption to engine power ratio was not ideal either;
• Passenger comfort. Piston engines are loud, they vibrate a lot (especially on a plane like the Constellation with 4 piston engines) and generally make passengers uncomfortable. With the price tag at the time for a ticket, they certainly did not provide a luxurious experience;
• The demand for trans-Atlantic flights has risen significantly. While Piston props could theoretically do trans-Atlantic flights, they usually had to stop to refuel. Their cruising speed was slow, so the flights took much longer than with jet engines.

Laying down the foundations

One of the most important facts to know is that Boeing risked everything with the new 707. It was literally a make it or break it situation. The current Boeing company president at the time, William Allen, committed $16 million to develop 367-80. The money was everything that the company had earned after the war. So, if the 367 was a bust – the company would go bust as well.

Subsequently, the public nicknamed it the “Dash 80“. The 367 was an early Boeing 707 and Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker prototype.

Boeing’s strategy was simple – change the general perception that jet aircraft were unsafe. So, they developed and built the 367-80 to go on a tour around the United States (US) to prove to the public and CEOs of Airlines alike that a jet-powered aircraft can be safe while showcasing a flying example.

You got to hand it to Boeing – if the aircraft were to fail during these demonstration flights, the company was gone. However, they did a brilliant job of designing and building it and it encountered no issues after preliminary taxi and flight tests. After engineers completed the early designs in 1952, Boeing decision-makers approved it. Just two years later, in July of 1954, the 367-80 commenced its first flight.

Boeing, like all others, had an advantage – they knew the structural problems of the de Havilland Comet. Nevertheless, you mustn’t forget that Boeing also built military aircraft. Like the Russians with the Tu-104, Boeing also used their experience from the B-47 Stratojet to build the new 367-80.

Do a barrel roll and make 707 a jetstar

August 6^th, 1955 was a huge day for Boeing. In Seafair, an event held in Seattle, William Allen invited AIA and IATA members to show them the new jet.

This was crucial for the future success of the 707. If those 2 associations approve it, then there was nothing to stop the new Boeing jet from entering commercial service. As the company already secured orders for the KC 135 Stratotankers, it was crucial to do so for the 707 as well.

And one man made sure that the members of AIA and IATA would approve it. While doing a casual fly over, test pilot Alvin Johnston performed two barrel rolls. It might not have been the smartest decision to do so, the pilot later said he was just “selling airplanes”.  While you cannot certainly say that the barrel roll sold the aircraft to customers, but it definitely made an impact.

Cultural impact

While the Comet was the first commercial jet that started service, people wanted to forget about it. As quickly as possible. So when Boeing, a well-known manufacturer in the US, kicked the door open with it‘s 707, it instantly became a hit. Not only commercially for Boeing, but notably, it became an American cultural icon.

Even so much so, that Frank Sinatra bought his own 707. His “Come Fly With Me” album cover showed an aircraft, albeit a Lockheed Constellation. However, whenever someone heard the “Come Fly With Me” song, they imagined a Boeing 707 in front of their eyes. What is even crazier, that Jantzen, a swimwear company, used the Boeing 707 to advertise their newest swimwear collection in 1957.

Pan American Airways released a short-movie about the new jet and called it “The Wonderful Jet World of Pan-American.”

Boeing 707 – a commercial success

It became a cultural icon for a good reason – airlines also loved it. In total, Boeing built 856 Seven O’ Seven jets. Airlines bought 725, while Air Force units used the rest of the 707s.

Pan American Airways introduced the Boeing 707 on October 17^th, 1958. Pan Am held a christening event, which the current president of the US, Dwight Eisenhower, attended.  A special inaugural flight from Baltimore to Paris followed. Friends of Juan Trippe, the founder of Pan Am, occupied the seats onboard the flight. 9 days later, on October 26^th, Pan Am started passenger operations from New York to Paris, with a fuel stop in Newfoundland.

The jet was not popular only inside the American market. Qantas started flying the 707 in 1959 and was the first international airline to do so. Many more followed Qantas and bought their first jets. El Al, BOAC, Singapore Airlines, Air France, Aer Lingus and Lufthansa were amongst the long list of 707 customers.

As I mentioned above, the Air Force used the 707s in various military specifications. Even today, 61 years after its launch, the Boeing 707 military units use it as a transport or a reconnaissance aircraft.

Regarding its safety record, aviation experts regard the 707 as a safe aircraft. Although accidents destroyed 173 Boeing 707 aircraft completely, pilots never complained about the difficulty of flying the jet. Nor it had any major structural issues like the de Havilland Comet did.

Too good for its own good

As public confidence grew, so did the passenger numbers for airlines operating the 707. Airlines could not keep up with the demand and Boeing had to come up with new variants to satisfy their customer needs. Qantas received a long-range model, while Braniff International got special 707s to fly in the high altitudes of South America.

As a result of trying to satisfy everyone’s needs, Boeing did not make a lot of profit off of the 707. Although it was commercially successful amongst airlines, the constant modifications made the program costly. However, the 707 laid the foundations for the further success of the company. As I said that airlines could not cope with the demand, the 707 eventually developed into the Queen of the Skies. So, while indirectly, the 707 still brought a profit to Boeing when the aircraft convinced airlines that Boeing built great jets.

And the Boeing 707 was good. In fact so good, that John Travolta even bought one. Qantas previously used the airline for regular service, when John Travolta purchased it. He then donated it to Historical Aircraft Restoration Society in Australia.

Furthermore, numerous countries still use the 707s in their Air Force, while the last commercial 707 crashed just two weeks ago.

To sum up, what the 707 did for aviation would be difficult and would require me a lot of additional words. But in an effort to keep it as short as possible, I will say this – the 707 was a huge risk that paid off for Boeing. And not only it did push the company forward, but it also pushed every other aircraft manufacturer forward to innovate, strive for greatness and be daring. The Boeing 707 brought revived the dream of jet aviation.

The sense of loss following a plane crash or a helicopter accident that results in fatalities can be particularly acute. 

Thankfully, the vast majority of people will never have to endure this, due to the aviation industry’s intense commitment to safety.  

For all those people who have lost friends, partners and family in air disasters, they are left with a feeling of helplessness that they were unable to protect those they love most. 

Though never comparable to losing a loved one, people can also experience a genuine sense of grief when a famous person, such as a star of the sports world, is killed in an air disaster. 

These sports men and women become idols and heroes to thousands around the world, and when their talents are brought to a tragic and premature end, it can leave an entire population in mourning.  

Kobe Bryant 

Kobe Bryant was an American hero to millions when he was killed in a Southern Californian helicopter crash at the age of just 41.  

This giant of the NBA had achieved everything in the game as a five-time championship winner with the Los Angeles Lakers, a team to which he had devoted his entire career.  

The final report of the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the crash on January 26, 2020, which also took the life of Bryant’s 13-year-old daughter Gianna and six other people, was caused by the pilot’s poor decisions and a potential “self-induced pressure” to satisfy his famous passenger. 

Despite his extensive experience (over 8,500 visual flight hours), the pilot’s decision to continue “to fly on sight in instrument meteorological conditions”, resulting in his spatial disorientation and loss of control, proved catastrophic.  

The tragedy left millions bereft and ended the life of a sporting great who still had so much to give. 

Emiliano Sala 

When Argentinian footballer Emiliano Sala boarded a plane in Nantes, France on January 21, 2019, he was surely looking forward to attending his first training session with Cardiff City, the British club that had recently signed him. 

However, as he flew over the English Channel aboard a Piper Malibu aircraft, disaster struck and the plane crashed into the sea.  

Although Sala officially died from head and chest injuries caused by the impact, an inquest heard that the striker would have been “deeply unconscious” due to fumes from the plane’s faulty exhaust system. 

The aircraft accident investigation showed that the flight was illegal because it did not have the correct certificates or permissions to operate as a commercial flight. Maintenance was also not performed according to commercial flight standards.    

The pilot, David Ibbotson, also perished in the accident. He did not hold a commercial pilot license (CPL) or a night rating. In addition, his rating to fly single-engine piston aircraft had expired and he had only limited experience flying in instrument meteorological conditions, when weather means that pilots must rely on their instruments rather than outside visual references. 

On October 28, 2021, David Henderson, a former RAF officer who organized the flight for agent William ‘Willie’ McKay, was found guilty of endangering the aircraft. On November 12, 2021, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.   

Munich Air Disaster: Busby Babes   

The Munich Air Disaster on February 6, 1958, has gone down in history as one of the biggest catastrophes in sporting history.  

The Manchester United team, known as the Busby Babes in honor of its manager Sir Matt Busby, included some of the most talented footballers in the world, adored by hundreds of thousands of fans across the globe.    

On the day of the plane disaster, the players and coaches were set to return to England after refueling at the now-closed Munich-Riem Airport, having beaten Belgrade in the former Yugoslavia.  

Tragically, after attempting its third take-off from Munich, the British European Airways flight crashed. There were 40 passengers onboard, 20 of whom were killed instantly. Three more people subsequently died in hospital.  

The eight players who perished were Geoff Bent (25), Roger Byrne (28), Eddie Colman (21), Duncan Edwards (21), Mark Jones (24), David Pegg (22), Tommy Taylor (26) and Liam Whelan (22).   

At the time of the third take off, the runway was covered heavily with slush from churned-up snow.  

As a result, the aircraft skidded at the end of the runway and crashed into a house, causing a fire and then an explosion.  

An initial investigation blamed the pilot, who had survived, for not clearing ice from the wings. However, a decade later the cause of the crash was deemed to have been the slush on the runway which slowed the aircraft down.    

In the years that followed, with the loss of so many team members, the fortunes of Manchester Utd struggled. However, under the leadership of Sir Matt Busby the club never gave up, and 10 years after the Munich Air Disaster the team won the European Cup. 

Payne Stewart 

Payne Stewart at Pinehurst in 1999 – pic.twitter.com/wFXbA9Ltb4

— TheGolfDivoTee  (@TheGolfDivoTee) December 25, 2023

Payne Stewart was a highly acclaimed US professional golfer who achieved more during his short career than most can dream of. He won 11 PGA Tour events and three major championships, including the PGA Championship in 1989, and the US Open in both 1991 and 1999.  

However, just four months after winning his second US Open trophy the 41-year-old was tragically killed when a LearJet on which he was travelling crashed in South Dakota. 

According to the NTSB’s final report, it was not possible to verify what caused the death of Stewart and five other people onboard.  

The NTSB said that the two pilots most likely lost consciousness due to a sharp drop in cabin pressure and a failure to get to emergency oxygen. 

Shortly after take-off communication was lost with the pilots, and fighter jets were subsequently scrambled to reach the plane to try and identify the problem.  

The business jet continued to fly for over four hours until its fuel eventually ran out and then it plummeted to the ground at incredible speed.  

The NTSB’s ability to determine what happened was hampered by the extensive damage to the aircraft and the fact that there was no flight recorder onboard.  

Rocky Marciano 

Rocco Francis ‘Rocky Marciano’ Marchegiano was one of the fiercest and most skilled boxers ever to grace the ring.  

He is among only a handful of fighters, including Floyd Mayweather Jr, who finished their entire careers undefeated.  

The Italian American boxer was adored by the crowds, and when he called time on his career, he had achieved an astonishing record of 49 wins with 43 stoppages. A true champion who defended his title to the bitter end, he even inspired the fictional movie icon Rocky Balboa.  

Unfortunately, Rocky Marciano’s life ended in tragedy when he was just 46, as a passenger on board a Cessna 172-H that crashed. 

According to the NTSB, on the night of August 31, 1969, an inexperienced pilot tried to land the Cessna at a small airfield outside Newton, Iowa.  

“The pilot attempted an operation exceeding his experience and ability level, continued visual flight rules under adverse weather conditions and experienced spatial disorientation in the last moments of the flight,” the NTSB’s report stated.  

By some accounts, the plane struck a tree around a mile and a half from Newton Airport (EWK), causing a wing to break off and ultimately destroying the plane. 

Lokomotiv hockey team disaster 

4 Years Ago today a Plane crashed resulting in the loss of the full Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Ice Hockey team R.I.P pic.twitter.com/dG7NBrT7VK

— GMBPanthersLive (@GMBPanthersLive) September 7, 2015

On Wednesday, September 7, 2011, the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl ice hockey team was due to fly to Minsk for a match in the Russian Kontinental League. 

The Yakovlev Yak-42 charter flight was set to depart from Tunoshna Airport (IAR) in Russia with the flight crew, hockey team and coaches all onboard.  

At around 4pm the aircraft began its take-off. However, it failed to get fully airborne and struck an antenna mast that was located about 450 meters from the end of the runway.  

The impact caused the aircraft to veer to the left and it came crashing down onto the bank of the Tunoshonka River. 45 people perished at the scene and only two survived the crash. 

The flight engineer Alexander Sizov and Russian international player Alexander Galimov were rushed to hospital for life-saving treatment, but only Sizov would survive.  

The Interstate Aviation Committee concluded that the crash was caused by one of the pilots accidentally activating the aircraft brakes, and then trying to rectify the mistake by pulling the plane up too sharply. 

The plane’s operator, Yak-Service, was castigated for not training its staff sufficiently. The pilots were found to have falsified documents claiming that they had undergone the necessary training for the Yak-42. 

Alexei Morozov, who headed the investigation, said that the pilots had flown a similar type of plane but with a different layout, and may not have learnt the correct positioning for their feet.  

Morozov also stated that the second pilot was taking a type of sedative to control a neurological disorder, and that this may have affected his feet and hands.    

United States Figure Skating Team 

On February 15, 1961, all 18 members of the 1961 United States (US) figure-skating team and 16 others accompanying them were killed when the Sabena Boeing 707-300 they were travelling on crashed in Belgium.  

The aircraft left Idlewild International Airport, later to become John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), and flew for over seven hours before crashing as it approached Brussels Airport (BRU). 

Including the US ice skaters and their entourage on the plane, 72 people were killed, as well as a further victim on the ground. The youngest skater was just 15, the eldest 24. 

#OTD in 1961, 73 people, including an 18-member U.S. figure skating team en route to the World Championships in Czechoslovakia, were killed in the crash of a Sabena Airlines Boeing 707 in Belgium. | Photo Matty Zimmerman pic.twitter.com/FvJOzcwQYr

— AP Images (@AP_Images) February 15, 2020

Accident investigators could not ascertain what caused the crash, only that it had led to a loss of control.  

The FAA believed it was most likely that the tail stabilizer-adjusting mechanism had failed, allowing the stabilizer to pitch to the 10.5deg nose-up position. 

Following the tragic crash, newly elected President John F. Kennedy said: “Our country has sustained a great loss of talent and grace which had brought pleasure to people all over the world. Mrs. Kennedy and I extend our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of all the passengers and crew who died in this crash.”  

According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in 2022 there were just five accidents resulting in the loss of life to any of those on board a commercial aircraft. 

When you consider that there were 32.2 million flights that year, it’s easy to understand why commercial aviation is highlighted as an extremely safe way to travel.  

It’s actually because of the rarity, and of course tragic nature, of the incidents that passenger jet crashes can still resonate decades after they happened. 

However, even among these tragedies there are still some that seem to stick in the mind more than others.  

Not just because of how many people were killed, but just how unnecessary and preventable the deaths were.  

December 29, 1972

Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 took off from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) at 9:20 pm local time, on December 29, 1972, just a few days after Christmas. 

What was striking about the flight was just how normal it was, with calm weather and great visibility.  

However, the events that unfolded by the end of its journey were anything but run-of-the-mill.  

In command of the Lockheed L-1011-1 TriStar widebody aircraft, registered N310EA, was Captain Robert Albin Loft, an experienced aviator who had flown for Eastern Air Lines for 32 years.  

Loft was accompanied by First Officer Albert John Stockstill and Flight Engineer Donald Louis Repo.  

December 29, 1972 – Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 (a Lockheed L-1011 TriStar) crashes in the Florida Everglades on approach to Miami International Airport, Florida, killing 101 of the 176 people on board. #TodayInHistory pic.twitter.com/1CnVhEYHGY

— Today In History Bot (@WikiTodayBot) December 29, 2020

A maintenance manager for Eastern Air Lines was also in the cockpit hitching a ride and another pilot for the carrier had moved from the flight deck to an empty seat in first class. 

Also onboard were 163 passengers and 10 cabin crew, with dozens of seats laying empty when the plane took off.  

As the Tristar neared Miami Airport (MIA) for landing the pilots became concerned that the aircraft’s landing gear was not lowering into its full position.  

A green indicator light that would normally illuminate when the landing gear was in the correct place did not come on and the flight crew set about trying to troubleshoot the issue. 

“Ah, tower this is Eastern, ah, four zero one, it looks like we’re gonna have to circle, we don’t have a light on our nose gear yet,” Loft told air traffic control. 

After the flight crew announced they had performed a missed approach, air traffic control instructed them to climb straight ahead to 2,000 feet and begin a left turn out over the Florida Everglades.  

Once in position Captain Loft instructed his first officer to engage the autopilot. 

As the aircraft flew above the Everglades the captain, first officer and the flight engineer tried to fix the issue with the landing gear and the failing indicator light. 

Distracted by the issue and with a moonless sky, no one on the flight deck noticed that the aircraft had dropped 100 feet of its own accord.  

As they continued to troubleshoot the problem, a tone in the cockpit indicating that the aircraft’s altitude had fallen by 250 feet was left unheard. 

Still oblivious to the aircraft’s position, the TriStar reached an altitude of 900 feet. Knowing the aircraft was meant to be at 2,000 feet, a controller at MIA asked, “How are things comin’ along out there?”. 

In response the flight crew asked to return to the airport, and they were given the go-ahead, but as the aircraft turned something did not feel right. 

“We did something to the altitude[…]we’re still at 2,000, right?” Stockstill asked.  

“Hey, what’s happening here?” Loft exclaimed.  

Three seconds later Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 crashed into the Everglades destroying the plane.  

‘I tried to help as many as I could’

According to reports, the jet was traveling at 227 miles per hour when it hit the ground and as it impacted into the wetlands the aircraft broke into pieces.  

Some of those on board the aircraft were killed instantaneously, others died while waiting for help.  

“Ah, Miami tower this is National 611, we just saw a big explosion, looks like it was out west. I don’t know what it means, but I thought you should know,” a pilot from another aircraft in the area told controllers. 

In the chaos that ensued 99 people died at the scene, and two succumbed to their injuries later on. 

Somehow, despite the intensity of the crash, 75 people survived, some suffering injuries so minor that they did not even go to hospital.  

Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 crashes into the Everglades in Florida, killing 101 of 176 on board. The cockpit crew was preoccupied with checking the L-1011's landing gear when a light on the instrument panel failed to come on. pic.twitter.com/UbhhU54Mdp

— 1973 Live (@50YearsAgoLive) December 29, 2022

Of those in the cockpit only the maintenance manager who was hitching a ride survived and of the 10 cabin crew members, two perished.  

Analysis of the crash revealed that most of those who were killed were sat in the plane’s midsection and if it had not been for the swamps of the Everglade’s partially absorbing the impact many more would probably have died.  

A local frog hunter who went and helped the survivors in his airboat said: “There were people screaming for help everywhere, dead bodies floating face down, some naked with just shoes on. I tried to help as many as I could.” 

The tragedy was the first time that a widebody aircraft had ever crashed.  

The end of ‘absolute control’

A crash investigation report published by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in June 1973 said it was possible that the altitude hold function on the autopilot was accidentally disengaged.  

The report cited that at the same time the aircraft experienced a drop in altitude the “captain ordered the flight engineer to enter the electronics bay to visually check the Nose Landing Gear”. 

The NTSB report speculated that the captain could have “inadvertently applied a force to the control wheel” when speaking to the engineer and disconnected the altitude hold function.  

However, ultimately the “descent from the assigned altitude of 2,000 feet was not determined”. 

The NTSB therefore concluded that the probable cause was “the failure of the flight crew to monitor the flight instruments during the final 4 minutes of flight, and to detect an unexpected descent soon enough to prevent impact with the ground.” 

“Preoccupation with a malfunction of the nose landing gear position indicating system distracted the crew’s attention from the instruments and allowed the descent to go unnoticed,” the NTSB said.   

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the philosophy at the time of the accident was that the captain was in “absolute control” and that the crew did not operate as a team.  

“It was not typically expected that the flight crew would perform as a team, and subordinate crewmembers did not generally assert any authority while in flight. This generally resulted in crewmembers waiting for an order from the captain before performing any task, and inhibited initiative on the part of subordinate crewmembers in responding to abnormal or emergency situations,” the FAA said.  

Subsequently, the Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 crash led to an industry overhaul and the “development and predominant industry-wide adoption of crew resource management (CRM) philosophies”. 

Essentially this created an ever-evolving set of aircraft training and rules where human error can have devastating effects. 

In this article, we’ll delve into its fascinating history, mission, performance, variants, price, current operator, and deliveries, plus the future that lies ahead for this legendary attack aircraft.

History 

The A-10 Warthog story began in the late 1960s when Fairchild Republic Corporation (now part of Northrop Grumman) designed and built an aircraft to answer the A-X program. The tender demanded an aircraft that would fill the CAS role previously held by the A-1 Skyraider during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. 

A subsonic jet – that is, one that flies at less than the speed of sound – the A-10 Warthog Thunderbolt II entered service with the United States Air Force (USAF) in March 1976. To maintain its relevance, over the years the A-10 has received numerous upgrades, including new avionics, weapons systems, engines, and wings. 

A-10 Warthog’s mission 

The primary mission of the A-10 Warthog is to provide fire support to troops on the ground. Its capacity for hovering over a battlefield for extended periods, its impressive firepower, and its ability to take damage and keep on flying make it a formidable asset in supporting ground forces engaged in combat. 

Performance 

The A-10 Warthog’s performance is nothing short of exceptional, making it a standout in the world of military aviation. Here’s a closer look at its remarkable capabilities: 

• Unique Design: The A-10’s twin-engine, straight-wing design is distinctive and purpose-built. This configuration provides several advantages, including stability and lift at low altitudes, making it a highly maneuverable aircraft. Its overall rugged design, featuring 1,200 pounds (540 kilograms) titanium armor box known as the ‘bathtub’, is made to protect the pilot from ground fire and is optimized for survivability on the battlefield. It is also designed for easy maintenance and repair in austere conditions. 
• ‘Tank-Killer’ Reputation: The A-10 earned its moniker as a ‘tank-killer’ for a reason. Central to this capability is the GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm rotary cannon. This seven-barrel Gatling gun is specifically designed to penetrate enemy armored vehicles, using 30×173mm PGU-14/B armor-piercing projectile with depleted uranium core. Its firing rate of 3,900 rounds per minute makes it a fearsome weapon on the battlefield. 
• Low-Speed Advantage: One of the A-10’s defining characteristics is its relatively low cruising speed of 300 knots (560 km/h). While some fighter-bombers are built for high-speed intercept and evasion, the A-10’s slower pace is a strategic advantage in the ground-attack role. This slower speed allows for more accurate targeting and improved visibility when operating at low altitudes, which contributes to its effectiveness in supporting troops and engaging ground targets. 
• Engines: The A-10 Warthog is powered by two General Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofan engines, each generating a thrust of 9,065 pounds-force (40.32 kN). These engines are well regarded for their durability and performance, making them an ideal choice for an aircraft designed for CAS missions.

General specifications   

Performance specifications   

A-10 Warthog Thunderbolt II variants 

Over the years, the A-10 has been through various iterations and upgrades, from the A-10A to the A-10C and several experimental models. The A-10C is the most modern version, featuring advanced avionics and weapon systems.  

Here’s a closer look at these A-10 variants:

YA-10A 

A pre-production version of which 12 units were manufactured.

A-10A 

The initial production version designed for single-seat CAS and ground-attack missions. 

OA-10A 

A variant of the A-10A used for airborne forward air control. 

YA-10B Night/Adverse Weather (N/AW) 

An experimental prototype featuring two seats, designed for night and adverse weather operations. The sole YA-10B prototype was converted from an A-10A. 

A-10C 

A version of the A-10A that underwent updates as part of the incremental Precision Engagement (PE) program.

A-10PCAS 

An unmanned version proposed by Raytheon and Aurora Flight Sciences (now part of Boeing) in 2012 as part of DARPA’s Persistent Close Air Support program. After a successful demonstration campaign that concluded in 2015, the initial idea of using an optionally manned A-10 was later dropped.

Price 

As of 2023, the A-10 Warthog comes with a baseline price tag of approximately $13.4 million per aircraft. This figure encompasses the initial procurement cost, training expenses and transfer fees. Additionally, it’s important to factor in the continuous expenses related to the repairs and upgrades required to keep the A-10 operating at its optimal performance level. 

A-10 Warthog’s current operators and deliveries 

The A-10 has only been used by the USAF and its two reserve units, the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and the Air National Guard (ANG). In 2017, there were a total of 282 operational A-10C aircraft, distributed as follows: 141 with the USAF, 55 with the AFRC, and 86 with the ANG.

Future ahead 

Following numerous rejections by Congress, the USAF finally obtained congressional approval to initiate the retirement of A-10s in 2023. The projected retirement of all A-10s is scheduled for either 2028 or 2029. Nevertheless, Congress has imposed a temporary halt on any further reductions in the active duty A-10 fleet. This pause will continue until the USAF can demonstrate that other aircraft are capable of effectively taking over CAS missions, which have traditionally been the domain of the A-10. 

This year, the Air Force is projected to retire 21 A-10s. As a result, the Air Force’s A-10 fleet will decrease from 281 to 260 aircraft. 

The SR-71 Blackbird: unveiling the fastest plane ever built

• Aircraft
• Aviation History
• Defense

ByRosita Mickeviciute

December 12, 2023

But how could such a disaster happen? And has anyone ever been held accountable for this atrocity? 

Background to Pan Am Flight 103  

It was around 18:00 on the evening of December 21, 1998, in the small Scottish border town of Lockerbie, Scotland, home to around 3,000 people. With four days to go until Christmas, in the town’s Sherwood Crescent, families were busy wrapping presents while children waited with excited anticipation for the start of the festive period just around the corner. 

Simultaneously, at London-Heathrow Airport (LHR), located some 330 miles (528km) south of Lockerbie across the border in England, a Pan Am Boeing 747-121 registered N739PA and named ‘Clipper Maid of the Seas’ was pushing back from its gate at the airport’s Terminal Three with 259 passengers and crew onboard. That night, the plane would be operating flight number PA103 from Heathrow to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in New York.  

N739PA had entered service with Pan Am on February 12, 1970, and had completed 16,497 flights and logged 72,646 flight hours operating exclusively for the airline during its career. 

In the aircraft’s vast cabin were passengers of all ages, either heading home for Christmas while others were traveling to New York to spend time with family and friends for the holiday season. The 259 passengers on Flight 103 originated from 21 different countries, with the vast majority holding United States (US) passports.  

Among those waiting to board the flight were 35 US students who had spent six to 12 months in Europe on an exchange program from Syracuse University in New York State. There were also 12 children under the age of 10. The youngest passenger was nine weeks old, and the oldest was a 79-year-old woman from Budapest. 

As families sat down for dinner in Lockerbie and settled into their seats on the 747 for the seven-hour flight to New York, no one at either location could have possibly known what horror would befall flight PA103 less than an hour later as the plane headed north on its transatlantic flight that night.  

A routine departure from London 

After take-off, the plane climbed to an altitude of 31,000 feet (9,500 meters). In the cockpit of N739PA, the flight crew was beginning their preparations for the oceanic portion of the flight. 

At 18:58, the copilot on Flight 103 contacted Shanwick Oceanic Area Control in Ireland. This is the air traffic control station that assigns flight corridors to planes flying across the North Atlantic to the US to minimize congestion on the transatlantic air lanes. The co-pilot transmitted his aircraft’s flight number, altitude, and final destination to Shanwick, who acknowledged the transmission.  

Four minutes later, at 19:02, the air traffic controller on duty in Shanwick received the flight plan for Flight 103 and checked it. He transmitted over the radio: “Clipper 103, take 59 north ten west to Kennedy.” But the controller received no response.  

At 19:02, while the air traffic controller was passing instructions to Flight 103, the image of the flight’s transponder suddenly disappeared from his radar screen. When the radar returns reappeared a couple of seconds later, the controller in Shanwick saw multiple images on his screen of where Flight 103 should have been.  

The inflight breakup of Flight 103 

At around 19:02:50, 38 minutes after take-off from London, Pan Am Flight 103 had exploded as it passed overhead the Scottish town of Lockerbie. A timer-activated bomb located in the forward lower cargo compartment beneath the first class section of the cabin had suddenly detonated.  

The subsequent explosion shattered the plane into several sections, all of which landed in an area covering roughly 850 square miles (2,200 square km) in and around Lockerbie.  

Upon detonation, the aircraft immediately broke into three main sections, with the front end, including the cockpit, falling away first. The central section containing the fuel tanks, wings, and engines followed with the aft fuselage breaking away as the remaining wreckage fell towards the ground. This explains why the front section was found away from the main debris field on the outskirts of the town. 

Falling wreckage from the stricken plane destroyed 21 houses in Lockerbie, killing an additional 11 people on the ground. Sherwood Crescent, where the aircraft’s wings and engines landed, was decimated, leaving a huge crater measuring 47 m (154 ft) long and with a volume of 560 m3 (20,000 cu ft; 730 cu yd) along with an intense inferno and the acrid stench of burning jet fuel.  

The four Pratt & Whitney jet engines from the plane were reportedly still running at full power when they hit the ground at 500mph (800 kph).  

According to an affidavit filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and made public by the US Department of Justice, witnesses in Lockerbie and the surrounding areas reported portions of the aircraft falling “from the sky, some of which appeared to be engulfed in flames.”  

As pieces of the aircraft hit the ground, some exploded. One such incident created an explosion that witnesses described as a “mushroom cloud.” 

All 243 passengers and 16 crew members onboard Flight 103 were killed. A further 11 people in houses along Sherwood Crescent also lost their lives.  

The investigation begins 

Over the following three years, investigators from the UK, the US, Germany, and several other countries collected thousands of pieces of evidence relating to Flight 103 and questioned more than 15,000 people across over 30 countries. The debris (said to be around four million separate pieces of aircraft, luggage, and human remains) was collected.  

All parts of the airframe were taken away and stored to be painstakingly examined as part of the investigation process run by the UK’s Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB). The detached forward fuselage section, the only main section relatively intact, would eventually bear vital evidence as to what had happened to Flight 103.  

Examining the wreckage, the investigators made an important discovery. Pieces of wreckage from the left side of the front fuselage along with two luggage containers stowed in that section showed signs of an explosion. One of these containers had been loaded in Frankfurt and transferred onto Flight 103 at Heathrow. 

Investigative breakthroughs 

After weeks of testing, it was discovered that scraps of cloth and splinters from one suitcase showed traces of the chemicals RDX and PETN. Both are normally left in the wake of explosions triggered by the plastic explosive Semtex, which was produced in Czechoslovakia at the time. 

They also found a tiny fragment of an electrical circuit that was identified as part of a Toshiba radio cassette player. The scraps of cloth were found to be from a pair of trousers sold only by a specific clothing shop on the Mediterranean island of Malta.   

The investigators concluded that an improvised explosive device had been concealed in the cassette player, wrapped in the trousers, which had then been placed in a brown Samsonite suitcase. This finding was revealed in the official report of the accident published by the AAIB in July 1990 – 19 months after the crash. 

From these tiny but crucial pieces of evidence, the investigators were able to rule that a bomb, rather than mechanical failure, had caused the explosion and the downing of Flight 103.  

It was discovered through tracking pieces of luggage that the brown Samsonite suitcase had been placed on an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt and subsequently transferred onto a Pan Am intra-European feeder flight carrying connecting passengers to Flight 103 for their onward journey between London and New York. Investigators also found that no passenger was listed as the owner of this bag and that it had traveled from Malta unaccompanied.    

The finger of suspicion points toward Libya 

Upon further intelligence being received and analyzed by both British and US authorities began to suspect Libyan agents as the prime suspects in planting the bomb onboard Flight 103. They looked back through old records and discovered that two Libyan men had been arrested in Senegal in

February 1988 with a device exactly like that which was suspected to have caused the loss of Flight 103. 

In the summer of 1991, a man presented himself to US authorities who would become investigators star witness regarding the provenance of the bomb. Abdel Madshid Jiacha, a former Libyan secret agent, had subsequently been an assistant to the station manager of Libyan Arab Airlines at Malta airport. Upon questioning, he implicated two of his colleagues in the bombing of Flight 103 and gave further details.  

After months of questioning Jiacha, the FBI and the UK Metropolitan Police anti-terrorism branch announced that the attack on the Pan Am Boeing 747 had been carried out by two Libyan secret agents, namely Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, and Amin Chalifa Fhimah.  

Jiacha had said he had observed these two men as they loaded the suitcase containing the bomb onto the plane in Malta that was bound for Frankfurt. He also said that the Libyan government had ordered the attack on Pan Am 103 as revenge for the US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986. 

The then-president of Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, initially refused to hand over the two suspects for questioning. However, due to increasingly stringent economic sanctions being imposed on the Libyan regime by the US and the United Nations Security Council, Gaddafi eventually capitulated and accepted the request to extradite the two men in 1998.  

Terrorist trial and conviction   

In 2001, at a special court in Scotland, over whose land the crime had been committed, and following an investigation that involved interviewing 15,000 people and examining 180,000 pieces of evidence, al-Megrahi was convicted of the bombing and was sentenced to 20 years in prison, later increased to 27 years.  

The other man indicted, Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, was eventually acquitted. Upon al-Megrahi’s conviction, the Libyan government agreed to pay damages to the families of the victims of the attack. 

In 2009, al-Megrahi, having served eight years of his 27-year sentence, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Following a series of intense and highly contentious legal hearings, al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland on compassionate grounds in August 2009 and was allowed to return to Libya. 

Facing a huge backlash from families of those US citizens who had died on Flight 103, the United States government strongly disagreed with the Scottish government’s decision to release al-Megrahi. It lobbied heavily that he remain in jail. However, with no legal jurisdiction over the case, and with the European Court of Human Rights also entering the fray, the Scottish government stuck by its decision to release al-Megrahi. 

Al-Megrahi flew from Edinburgh Airport (EDI) to Tripoli on August 20, 2009, and was met at Tripoli Airport (TIP) by Colonel Gaddafi’s son, Saif Gaddafi. Upon arrival back in his homeland, al-Megrahi was treated like a national hero. He eventually died from cancer in May 2012. 

Despite paying $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of those who died, Libya has never officially admitted responsibility for the bombing of Flight 103, and Colonel Gaddafi himself was overthrown and assassinated by Libyan rebel militia fighters in October 2011.  

There were high-level calls from US authorities in 2020 for Libya to extradite a further five suspects to the US that the FBI wanted to question about their possible involvement in the attack on Pan Am Flight 103.  

However, with compensation paid in full and with the Libyan authorities considering the matter closed, there have been no further suspects being extradited or questioned by any country over the terrorist attack on Flight 103. 

Remembering the deceased 

All passengers’ bodies bar seven were recovered from the area surrounding the crash site. Of the 11 that perished on Sherwood Crescent, there were no meaningful remains found in the aftermath of the crash that could be recovered for burial.  

The main UK-based memorial for the victims is at Dryfesdale cemetery, located about one mile (1.5 kilometers) west of Lockerbie. There is a semicircular stone wall in the garden of remembrance with the names and nationalities of all the victims along with individual funeral stones and memorials.  

There are also memorials in the church in Lockerbie where a plaque listing the names of all 270 victims appears. In Lockerbie Town Hall, a stained-glass window was installed depicting flags of the 21 countries whose citizens lost their lives in the disaster. There is also a book of remembrance at Lockerbie Public Library and another at Tundergarth Church, close to where the cockpit section of N379PA was found in a field on the outskirts of the town.  

In Sherwood Crescent itself, which bore the brunt of the impact as N739PA crashed to earth, there is a garden of remembrance for the residents of Lockerbie who lost their lives. 

All those who died as a result of the downing of Flight 103 are also remembered on a specifically dedicated memorial in Arlington Cemetery, just outside Washington DC in Virginia, United States. The group of students from Syracuse University heading home for Christmas also have their own dedicated memorial on their university campus.  

Conclusion and legacy of Flight 103 

The tragic events of 35 years ago shocked the world and the accident involving Pan Am Flight 103 remains the worst single aviation disaster in UK aviation history. However, many security procedures were changed after the event which means that air travel is now safer for all of us than it ever has been. 

A little-known fact about the flight is that Flight 103 was delayed while sitting at the gate at Heathrow for around 30 minutes while de-icing continued and paperwork was completed on the flight deck.  

Had this delay not occurred, then Flight 103 would have been well past Lockerbie and would have exploded as the flight headed out over the North Atlantic that night. Had this occurred, then little evidence might have been recovered from the seabed preventing the investigators from piecing together what exactly happened to N739PA “Clipper Maid of the Seas”. 

While acts of terror against commercial flights have been an ever-present threat since commercial airline flights were introduced decades ago, commercial air travel remains one of the safest forms of travel. And without such flights being available to many of us, the world would be a much larger place in which to live. 

The moniker ‘Foxbat’ was coined by James W. Doyle, a performance analyst from the US Air Force, to describe the MiG-25’s seemingly mystical capabilities at the time.

The first MiG-25 prototype flew in 1964 and the type entered service in 1970. 

Its development was driven by the perceived threat of American high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft like the XB-70 and SR-71, which were capable of flying at altitudes well beyond the reach of Soviet interceptors of the time. As such, the MiG-25 was purposely designed to be a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor capable of intercepting and shooting down these types of aircraft.

Design of MiG-25 

The design of the MiG-25 hinged on two primary characteristics: speed and altitude.

To achieve these performance capabilities, the aircraft was fitted with a large wing area and powerful engines. The wings were swept back at an angle of approximately 40 degrees to reduce drag and improve high-speed performance. The engines used on the MiG-25 were Tumansky R-15 turbojets, which produced a combined thrust of over 33,000 pounds force, enabling the aircraft to reach up to Mach 2.8, the maximum speed that it could sustain without damage. 

One of the most distinctive features of the MiG-25’s design was its long, pointed nose section. This was due to the aircraft’s primary role as an interceptor, whereby it needed to be able to detect and engage enemy aircraft from a distance. The nose of the MiG-25 housed the aircraft’s radar system, which was capable of detecting enemy aircraft at ranges up to 75 miles. 

The MiG-25’s design also incorporated several features to improve its survivability in combat. The aircraft was equipped with four air-to-air missiles and a single 23mm cannon for self-defense. It also featured a high degree of armour protection for the pilot and its engines were designed to be resistant to damage from enemy fire. 

Performance 

The MiG-25’s performance capabilities were truly impressive for its time. With a top speed of Mach 2.8, it ranked as the world’s second-fastest aircraft, following the SR-71 Blackbird, and not including rocket-powered aircraft the North American X-15.

MiG-25’s ceiling of 67,000 feet allowed it to operate at high altitudes beyond the reach of most other aircraft. However, the MiG-25’s range was limited due to its high fuel consumption at high speeds. Its combat radius was only around 186 miles, which made it less effective for long-range missions. 

The MiG-25 also had some limitations in terms of its maneuverability. Its large size and weight made it less agile than some other aircraft, and its high-speed performance came at the cost of stability at lower speeds. These limitations were largely due to the aircraft’s primary role as an interceptor, rather than a dogfighter. 

Military applications of MiG-25 Foxbat 

The MiG-25’s military applications were primarily focused on air defense and reconnaissance. Its speed and altitude capabilities made it a formidable opponent for any potential enemy aircraft, and it was used extensively in the Soviet Union’s air defense network during the Cold War. In addition to its interceptor role, the MiG-25 was also equipped with powerful cameras and sensors for reconnaissance missions. 

One of the MiG-25’s most notable military applications occurred during the Persian Gulf War, where Iraqi pilots flew the aircraft on several reconnaissance missions over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The MiG-25’s speed and altitude capabilities made it difficult to track with conventional radar systems, and it was able to gather valuable intelligence on enemy troop movements and military installations. 

Despite its success in the Gulf War, the MiG-25’s limitations became increasingly apparent in the years that followed. Its high-speed performance made it difficult to maneuver, and its limited range and reliance on ground control meant that it was vulnerable to modern air defence systems. The MiG-25 was gradually phased out of service in most countries by the late 1990s, as newer and more advanced aircraft became available, such as the MiG-31 and Su-27. 

Defection’s aftermath

In 1976, a Soviet Air Force pilot named Viktor Belenk was visiting Japan, having been assigned to participate in a joint Soviet-Japanese aviation exchange program. However, while in the country Belenko defected to Japan, complete with a MiG-25.

This allowed Western intelligence agencies to examine the aircraft up close and revealed that many of the previous assumptions about its capabilities were inaccurate. For example, it was believed that the MiG-25 was extremely maneuverable but, it was built for speed at the expense of agility. 

Belenko’s defection provided valuable intelligence to the West and the MiG-25 was no longer viewed as an invincible threat. Nevertheless, the aircraft remained in service for many years with the Soviet Union, amongst other countries, before eventually being succeeded by newer aircraft designs. 

In the Soviet Union, the MiG-25 was followed by the Mikoyan MiG-31, which entered service in the late 1970s. The MiG-31 was also an interceptor aircraft, but it had many improvements over its predecessor, including more advanced radar and avionics, better engines, and improved maneuverability. 

Other countries created their own aircraft to counter the MiG-25 threat. For example, the United States developed the F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat, both of which were designed to counter Soviet aircraft such as the MiG-25. These aircraft were also used for other purposes, such as air superiority and ground attack. 

MiG -25’s legacy lives on 

Despite having been retired from service in most countries, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 continues to live on as a symbol of Cold War-era aviation technology. Its impressive speed and altitude capabilities continue to inspire awe and its distinctive design has made it a popular subject for aviation enthusiasts and model makers alike. 

In addition to its military applications, the MiG-25 also played a role in the development of civilian aviation technology. The aircraft’s high-speed performance and ability to operate at high altitudes were instrumental in the development of the Concorde supersonic passenger jet, which made its first flight in 1976, just a few years after the MiG-25. 

Watch how MiG-25 Foxbat once terrified the West:

It was a strategic reconnaissance aircraft capable of conducting high-altitude reconnaissance missions deep into hostile territory with a very high degree of safety and success while staying out of the enemy air defenses. The aircraft was also designed for stealth to avoid being detected by enemy radar.

Design and performance of SR-71 

Lockheed’s SR-71 had an impressive performance profile that included a flight range of more than 3,200 miles (about 5,000 kilometers). This allowed for long-range reconnaissance missions over hostile territory without the need for in-flight refueling. To maximize the mission range, it usually refueled mid-air before and after its flight above hostile territory. 

The SR-71 Blackbird could fly at speeds exceeding Mach 3 or over 2,000 mph, which made it the fastest plane ever built, though it’s worth noting that rocket-powered aircraft the North American X-15 achieved higher speeds.

This incredible velocity was achieved thanks to two Pratt & Whitney J58 engines, which used afterburners to produce up to 32,500 pounds of static thrust each. The aircraft’s unique design, which included a pointed nose, slender body, and swept-back wings, also helped to reduce drag and increase speed. 

The cockpit of the SR-71 Blackbird was designed to withstand extreme temperatures and pressures at high altitudes. The cockpit included two seats, one for the pilot and one for the reconnaissance systems officer who was responsible for operating the aircraft’s surveillance and communication systems. The cockpit was also equipped with several advanced instruments and displays that allowed the pilots to monitor the aircraft’s performance and gather information during reconnaissance missions. 

The SR-71 was designed to fly at altitudes of up to 85,000 feet, more than twice the height at which commercial airliners operate. This allowed it to function in a near-space environment where the air is thin, and the temperature is extremely cold. The aircraft’s high altitude also made it virtually invulnerable to most forms of anti-aircraft defenses, as well as radar and visual detection. 

The entire plane was also designed to have a reduced radar cross-section (RCS) to make it harder to detect by enemy radar. To achieve this, the SR-71 Blackbird had a unique shape and was constructed primarily of titanium, which has a low RCS. To lower the radar cross-section of the SR-71, the vertical tail fins were constructed using a composite material. Various other measures were taken to reduce the aircraft’s RCS further still, such as coating the exterior with a special radar-absorbent material (RAM). 

Reconnaissance capabilities 

The SR-71 Blackbird was equipped with advanced surveillance and communication systems that allowed it to gather intelligence from long distances. They included cameras, electronic sensors, and data recorders that could capture high-resolution images and other data from long distances, all of which made it an invaluable tool for gathering intelligence in hostile environments. It could operate at night and in adverse weather conditions, which further increased its reconnaissance capabilities. 

Historical background of Lockheed’s SR-71 

The SR-71 Blackbird played a critical role in the Cold War, where it was used extensively for reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering missions. It was first deployed in 1964 and was used throughout the Vietnam War, amongst other conflicts and operations.  

After the USAF retired the SR-71 Blackbird from active service in 1998 due to the emergence of increasingly sophisticated reconnaissance technologies, NASA continued to use two variants of the aircraft (SR-71A and SR-71B) for various research purposes until 1999. The SR-71’s high altitude and speed capabilities made it ideal for conducting scientific research, such as collecting data on the Earth’s atmosphere and testing new technologies.  
 
During its time with NASA, the SR-71 was deployed on a variety of missions, such as studying the effects of supersonic flight on the atmosphere and testing new materials for use in aerospace vehicles. Eventually, NASA made the decision to retire both of its SR-71 aircraft in 1999. This choice was primarily influenced by budget limitations, ultimately bringing an end to the era of the SR-71. 

Variants of SR-71 Blackbird 

The SR-71 Blackbird had three primary variants: the SR-71A, SR-71B, and SR-71C, all produced between 1966 and 1972.  

In addition, there were two related aircraft, the A-12 and the YF-12, which were developed during the 1960s. The specific details of each aircraft are as follows: 

1. SR-71A: This was the primary production variant of the SR-71 Blackbird, which was in service from 1966 to 1990. It was a two-seater, long-range, high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft that was used by the USAF for intelligence gathering. 

2. SR-71B: This was a training variant of the SR-71 Blackbird, produced from 1966 to 1968. It had the same capabilities as the SR-71A but was configured with dual controls, allowing for a pilot and instructor to fly together. The SR-71B also had additional windows for the instructor’s seat. 

3. SR-71C: This was a hybrid aircraft that was created by modifying two existing SR-71A airframes in 1969. It was designed to serve as a trainer for the CIA’s A-12 pilots, as well as to serve as a backup aircraft for the SR-71 program. The SR-71C had a shorter range than the SR-71A, but it could still fly at high altitudes and speeds. It was retired in 1990, along with the SR-71A. 

Related aircraft

1. A-12: This was a single-seat, high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft that was operated by the CIA from 1963 to 1968. The A-12 was the predecessor to the SR-71 Blackbird, and it was designed to be faster and stealthier than the U-2 spy plane. The A-12 had a slightly longer fuselage than the SR-71 and lacked the ‘chines’ that ran along the sides of the Blackbird’s fuselage. 
2. YF-12: This was an experimental interceptor aircraft developed by the USAF from 1963 to 1968. The YF-12 was based on the A-12 design but was modified with a larger fuselage and more powerful engines. It could reach speeds of Mach 3.35 and was equipped with a powerful radar system for air-to-air combat. Only three YF-12s were built, and the program was eventually canceled due to budgetary constraints. 

SR-71 key specifications and dimensions

Note: The information in these tables is based on the SR-71A variant of the SR-71 Blackbird. 

Watch this video and discover the incredible technology that made the SR-71 Blackbird one of the most invincible aircraft in history.

The Soviet era’s fastest plane: the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

• Aircraft
• Aviation History
• Defense

ByRosita Mickeviciute

December 12, 2023

Less than 45 minutes after take-off the aircraft, loaded with 524 passengers and crew, crashed into a ridge of Mount Takamagahara, north-west of Tokyo, at a height of 5,135 ft.

The disaster claimed the lives of 520 people, leaving only four survivors. It is the deadliest single-aircraft accident in aviation history.

JAL Flight 115

The story of Flight 123 extends seven years prior to the accident, when on June 2, 1978, the same aircraft JA8119, operating as Japan Airlines Flight 115, was on approach into Osaka from Tokyo.

On touchdown, the aircraft bounced heavily, and the pilot excessively pulled back on the control column resulting in a severe tail-strike.

The incident caused injuries to 25 of the passengers on board and cracked open the rear pressure bulkhead. Despite the damage, the aircraft was repaired and returned to service.

JAL Flight 123 – August 12, 1985

The Boeing 747 aircraft flew without fault until that fateful day on August 12, 1985, when, 12 minutes after Flight 123 took off, at around 24,000 ft, the aircraft suffered a decompression.

The force of the decompression caused the ceiling inside the cabin to collapse, damaging the rear of the aircraft, and severing all four hydraulic lines used to move the flight controls as well as the vertical stabilizer which separated from the aircraft.

The flight crew sent out a distress signal to Tokyo air traffic control and began battling to control the stricken 747. The pilots were given radar vectors to follow for an emergency landing. However, with no hydraulics and no vertical stabilizer, the aircraft had become virtually uncontrollable.

The aircraft was oscillating, climbing, and descending in 4,000 ft cycles, which lasted about 90 seconds each, while at the same time rolling side to side.

The flight crew desperately employed techniques such as asymmetric thrust in an attempt to regain control and stabilize the aircraft. In preparation to make an approach, the landing gear was lowered, and the flaps extended but this caused further imbalance with the aircraft nose dropping and banking to the right.

At 18:56 local, the aircraft, now banking 40º, struck trees on the mountainside and, moments later, the right wing clipped a ridge, breaking the aircraft up and coming to rest between two ridges.

Aftermath

Tragically, only four passengers survived the crash. The nearby US Air Force was asked to stand down its rescue operation and leave it to the Japanese search and rescue, who, owing to the remote location of the crash site, were not onsite until the following morning.

Upon finding the bodies of the passengers the following day, it became apparent that more had survived the impact, but sadly later died of shock, overnight exposure high up in the mountains, and injuries that might not have been fatal had they been tended to sooner.

The pilots valiantly wrestled with the aircraft and, against the odds, with no directional control, kept it flying for 32 minutes. Among the wreckage, rescuers recovered farewell notes and messages from passengers onboard who had realized their fate.

The official cause of the crash was attributed to the incident seven years earlier at Osaka, involving the same aircraft, which damaged the rear bulkhead. Investigators found that the subsequent repair did not meet Boeing’s approved specifications.

The improper repair reduced the effective resistance to fatigue cracking. Consequently, with repeated pressurization cycles over time, the bulkhead gradually began to crack and weaken around the rivets that were holding the repair together until it failed.

Today, there is a memorial dedicated to the 520 victims of JAL Flight 123, located near the crash site. Each anniversary, families walk the mountainous path to remember the victims and observe a moment’s silence at 18:56.

This article was first published on August 12, 2022.

Dubbed ‘Concorde on the Thames’, the group behind the project are trying to raise funds to revive the supersonic jet to its former glory and exhibit the aircraft on a platform that hovers above the River Thames.  

According to the campaigners the Concorde at London-Heathrow Airport (LHR) has been totally stripped inside and is desperate for a new lease of life so the public can enjoy the incredible aircraft.  

The group are trying to raise £1 million ($1.2M) to cover three planning applications that are needed to ensure the jet has the right paperwork and expertise in place to be moved. 

The aircraft at LHR, known as Concorde Alpha Bravo, has been sitting at the airport since August 2000. 

The team behind Concorde on the Thames hope to galvanize support from politicians, business leaders and the global Concorde fraternity. 

The plans for the exhibit in Central London, close to Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, include a twin-deck platform, allowing visitors to enter from the riverside on the lower deck with the Concorde positioned above.  

A mock-up photo of what the exhibit would look like shows people walking around at the foot of the Concorde.  

As well as seeing the aircraft from the outside, visitors would be able to step inside and sit down as if they were about to take off for a supersonic flight to New York.  

It is not the first time that a project has been launched to move a Concorde to Central London and sadly previous attempts have ended in failure, but with a new band of aviation enthusiasts taking up the mantle, anything is surely possible.  

To donate to the project visit the team’s GoFundMe page.