June 26, 2024 - No. 26 In This Issue : GAMI Responds To Cirrus G100UL Service Advisory : V-22 Ospreys barred from full mission capability until ‘mid-2025’: NAVAIR boss : Merlin To Automate C-130s Next : The Fascinating Story Of The USAF’s “Upside-Down Air Force” : Phoney maintenance revisited : ‘Son of Concorde’ company’s superfactory will produce 33 supersonic aircraft a year : What kind of g-forces do birds experience and how does it compare to humans? : FAA Sets Conditions for Airbus A321XLR Novel Fuel Tank : Explainer-How Boeing's Starliner Can Bring Its Astronauts Back to Earth : Boeing 747s have a secret room passengers will never notice GAMI Responds To Cirrus G100UL Service Advisory By Russ Niles Published: June 22, 2024 Updated: June 24, 2024 General Aviation Modifications Inc. says it will issue a detailed response to Cirrus Aircraft’s recent service advisory discouraging the use of GAMI’s G100UL unleaded fuel in its SR series aircraft. In a statement to AVweb, GAMI said the service advisory appears to be linked to a single incident in which the sealant used in the fuel tank had unbonded in a company aircraft that had been fueled with G100UL. GAMI says there are indications the unbonded sealant had nothing to do with the fuel, but because the tank was not inspected before the unleaded fuel was introduced there’s no way to prove whether the fuel was a factor. In its service advisory, Cirrus said the materials compatibility of the fuel is “inconclusive.” GAMI also noted that the fuel has been used in other aircraft with the same sealant with no issues. “GAMI’s SR22 has had G100UL in the fuel tanks for most of the last 14 years. Recently, Cirrus engineers and management inspected the interior of those tanks, in person, using a borescope and found no evidence of any debonding by any of the factory applied sealant in that aircraft,” the company said in its statement. GAMI is also disputing Cirrus’s claim that use of G100UL voids the warranties on engines supplied by Lycoming and Continental and used in its aircraft. The engine warranties both state that they will not cover damage from the use of “non-approved fuel” but GAMI noted the FAA has approved G100UL for all models of Lycoming and Continental gasoline engines. AVweb has contacted Lycoming and Continental for clarification on warranty coverage for engines using G100UL. V-22 Ospreys barred from full mission capability until ‘mid-2025’: NAVAIR boss “I’ll assure you folks that we’re not going to let this matter drop,” House Oversight subcommittee chairman Glenn Grothman, R-Wisc., told families of victims who attended a congressional hearing today on the safety of the V-22 Osprey. By MICHAEL MARROW and VALERIE INSINNA on June 12, 2024 at 3:49 PM A CV-22 Osprey assigned to the 21st Special Operations Squadron takes off at Yokota Air Base, Japan, Jan. 8, 2021, during a training mission. (U.S. Air Force photo by Yasuo Osakabe) WASHINGTON — Frustrated by multiple fatal incidents in recent years, lawmakers today grilled Pentagon officials about the safety of the DoD’s V-22 Osprey fleet, which recently resumed limited flight operations after a deadly November crash prompted a months-long grounding. Although the tiltrotor aircraft is back in the skies, it’s restricted to flying within 30 minutes of an airfield. And now, a senior official revealed today it likely won’t resume its full mission profile until mid-2025. “I will not certify the V-22 to return to unrestricted flight operations until I am satisfied that we have sufficiently addressed the issues that may affect the safety of the aircraft,” Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Commander Vice Adm. Carl Chebi, who offered the mid-2025 timeline, told the House Oversight Committee’s national security subcomittee. Asked whether that timeline applies to Air Force Ospreys as well, a spokesperson for Air Force Special Operations Command told Breaking Defense, “We will continue to stay synched with the JPO [Joint Program Office] on all flight restrictions.” In response to safety concerns, Chebi said officials have implemented a “comprehensive review” of the V-22 encompassing the tiltrotor’s tri-service operators — Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy — that is “designed to make a long-term significant improvement in the safety, availability, and affordability of the V-22.” The review began prior to the November crash and is running in parallel to efforts to return the aircraft to full operations, according to Chebi’s written testimony [PDF]. RELATED: 6 months after fatal V-22 crash, an Air Force Osprey squadron in Japan prepares to fly again The November crash off Japan that killed eight airmen was just one of several in recent years, though officials have said the mishaps stem from different causes. For example, a fatal March 2022 crash in Norway that killed four Marines was attributed to pilot error. A crash in June 2022 that killed five Marines in California was traced to a mechanical problem known as a hard clutch engagement (HCE) — an issue known for years that later led the Air Force to ground its fleet, though the Navy and Marine Corps did not follow suit at the time. Three other Marines died when an Osprey crashed in Australia in August 2023, though the root cause of that incident has not been released. The November 2023 crash was caused by “a catastrophic aircraft mechanical failure that had never been seen before in the V-22 fleet,” Chebi testified today. Officials have been working to mitigate the hard clutch issue by replacing a part known as the input quill assembly, which belongs to the aircraft’s proprotor gearbox where the source of the HCE problem occurs. V-22 program officials are also designing a new clutch that’s expected to be implemented mid-2025, Gary Kurtz, program executive officer for air anti-submarine warfare and special missions programs, testified today. Chebi said there have been no HCE events since mitigation efforts were implemented, though the root cause of the HCE issue has not been formally identified. Families of victims of the June 2022 crash and others of the separate crash in Australia in August 2023 attended the Osprey hearing today to push officials for greater accountability and to ensure the Osprey fleet is safe. Four of the five families of the June 2022 incident have since filed a lawsuit against the Bell Textron, Boeing and Rolls-Royce industry team that makes the Osprey, alleging the contractors lied about the aircraft’s safety. The companies have not publicly addressed the lawsuit beyond reportedly declining to comment to the media. Chebi stayed behind after the hearing to answer questions from family members, but after his departure, several said their concerns about the Osprey’s safety record were not satisfied by the officials’ testimonies. “They don’t have enough information or data. They clearly don’t have answers still on the cause of these mishaps and why the hard clutch engagement is happening and they don’t have a fix for it. So in my mind, if you can’t fix it, you shouldn’t be flying it,” said Alexia Collart, whose son, Marine Corps Cpl. Spencer Collart, was a V-22 crew chief who died in the Australia crash. Amber Sax, the wife of Marine Corps Capt. John Sax, who died in the California crash, said she asked Chebi about a Marine Corps claim that it could reduce the likelihood of a hard clutch engagement by 99 percent by replacing the input quill assembly in a predetermined timeframe. “Without a root cause being found, how can you guarantee a 99 percent prevention rate?” said Sax, who is one of the family members involved in the wrongful death lawsuit. “Statistics just are not comforting. I can understand the mathematics behind them but when it’s personal, it goes out the window.” Rep. Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, implored officials to ground the Osprey until the new clutch is implemented, saying, “I don’t believe this aircraft is safe.” “If another Osprey goes down, we’re done. This program’s done,” he said. “Ground them now. We’ll bite the bullet for the next year or so until we get this clutch figured out. But we’ve already had too much carnage. We’ve already lost too many good men and women.” Regarding the November 2023 crash, the military is conducting two investigations that are routine for fatal mishaps: one led by a Safety Investigation Board (SIB), whose findings are kept internal to DoD, and another led by a parallel Accident Investigation Board (AIB) that shares its work with the public. Lawmakers on the committee today were particularly exasperated by the Pentagon’s apparent unwillingness to share SIB reports on Osprey crashes with them. “I don’t see how we can really adequately address this unless we have a look at those safety investigations,” subcommittee Chairman Glenn Grothman, R-Wisc., said in his closing remarks, who additionally chided officials for being unable to answer a “surprising” amount of questions. Peter Belk, who is performing the duties of the assistant secretary of defense for readiness, said in an exchange with Grothman that the DoD “remains committed to being transparent in sharing information related to any of these mishaps,” including through command investigations that are shared with Congress “upon request.” However, safety investigations in particular are meant to “maximize” transparency, which requires “safety privilege” for participants, he reasoned. Addressing families of Osprey crash victims, Grothman said, “I’ll assure you folks that we’re not going to let this matter drop. Merlin To Automate C-130s Next By Russ Niles Published: June 12, 2024 The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has awarded a $105 million contract to Merlin to build virtually autonomously operated C-130J Super Hercules transports. Although the description of the resulting aircraft is that they have “reduced aircrew capability,” one of the requirements for the contract is that they be able to fly takeoff to touchdown without human intervention. “The contract award marks a milestone in the collaboration between USSOCOM and Merlin, accelerating our ability to bring high levels of autonomy to a variety of fixed wing platforms to support the warfighter,” said Merlin CEO Matt George in a news release. The contract is apparently designed to get these aircraft in USSOCOM’s hands as quickly as possible. Since it’s never been done before, the contract is an “Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity” contract that presumably frees the contractor to create the end product without a lot of government folks looking over their shoulders. “The magnitude of the contract is an important proof point that USSOCOM continues to bring innovative capabilities out of testing and into production track programs,” said George. Merlin has a similar deal with the Air Force to automate KC-135 tankers. The Fascinating Story Of The USAF’s “Upside-Down Air Force” From fighters to tankers, the Upside-Down Air Force has tested numerous inverted aircraft since the early 1970s. OLIVER PARKEN POSTED ON MAY 31, 2024 6:37 PM EDT Note: See photos in the original article Back in the 1970s, as USAF aircraft featured increasingly sophisticated communications and electronic warfare systems, the service established a secretive testing project to measure the emissions and effectiveness of aircraft antennae systems. Known unofficially as the “Upside-Down Air Force,” the project is still an important part of USAF testing to this day. The Upside-Down Air Force has involved many types of aircraft over the years, from fighters to tankers, including the C-130 Hercules featured above, which was pictured in July 1986. At that time, the testing operation was part of the Air Force’s Rome Air Development Center (RADC), attached to the then Griffiss Air Force Base located in Rome, New York. The project involves bolting aircraft to 30-to-50-foot high pedestals. Essentially, this allows the Air Force to perform aircraft underside antenna functionality and emissions tests on the ground, rather than in the air. The latter is both very costly and less capable of delivering detailed data. Doing this work on the ground provides far more control over the positioning of aircraft compared to during flight testing and longer periods can be set aside to test than just when an aircraft is available and airborne. Mapping emissions patters around the aircraft and finding out things like what parts of the jet interfere with signals from different aspects were all part of this kind of testing. An YA-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft is mounted on a pedestal during a test at the Rome Air Development Center’s Newport Test Site, July 1984. National Archives National Archives The RADC was inaugurated at Griffiss on June 12, 1951, and was created to lead the development of early warning and command and control equipment for continental air defense under Air Force Systems Command (AFSC). It was not until 1971 however that the Upside-Down Air Force was established by RADC. Three research sites were created for testing under the project around Griffiss; all of which were selected because of the relative isolation of the land and its topography. At the Verona test site, located roughly 11 miles southwest of the base, the Precision Antenna Measurement System (PAMS) was used from the early 1970s to perform dynamic antenna measurements and evaluate the radiation characteristics of airborne aircraft. This allowed for various sorts of data on the effectiveness of antennas to be collected. Prior to this, antennas would be tested on partial aircraft mockups or scale models. However, as the Air Force noted, “this method has not provided enough realistic data on the antennas and the effect of the aircraft on the antenna characteristics. The development of the Precision Antenna Measurement System (PAMS) was undertaken to provide the type of data that is needed to accurately describe the effective radiation profile of airborne antenna systems.” According to RADC’s 1973 guide on PAMS, the system provided “the capability to conduct engineering evaluations of airborne antennas designed for use on tactical aircraft equipped with ECM [electronic countermeasures] and associated penetration aids. The facility operates over the frequency range of 0.1 – 18 GHz and is capable of receiving AM, FM, CW or pulse-type signals of any polarization. Measurements are correlated with the aircraft altitude and are conducted on a real-time radiated basis. Types of measurements include power (peak signal amplitude), density (peak signal amplitude X the IF Bandwidth) and integrated (integrated amplitude over octave or increments of an octave bandwidth in terms of DBW/MHZ). The final plotted data can be outputed in polarization, rectangular or three dimension.” For static testing, on the other hand, aircraft were separated by size. At the Newport test facility, located approximately 18 miles from Griffiss and consisting of several ranges, smaller aircraft testing was conducted, notably involving fighters and attack aircraft. From as early as 1972, RADC initiated efforts to investigate antenna measurement patterns of an ECM pod-equipped F-4 aircraft, for example. An F-4 Phantom II aircraft shows one angle of its weapon configuration while atop a pedestal at the Rome Air Development Center’s Newport test site, May 1984. The aircraft’s antennas are being evaluated during the test. National Archives “Originally slated for the salvage heap, RADC mounted the aircraft upside-down on a three axis pedestal at the… Newport Test Site to conduct the tests,” a subsequent official report by the Air Force states. “Antenna coverage by the pod appeared satisfactory with the pod removed from the aircraft, but unacceptable when installed.” An F-111, F-15, and YF-16 were added in 1976, 1979, and 1980, respectively. Newport also received a YA-10 with the serial number 71-1369, although when that occurred exactly remains unclear. A right side view of an F-15C Eagle aircraft mounted upside-down on a pedestal at the Rome Air Development Center’s Newport test site, October 1988. A radar warning system pod mounted on the fuselage is being evaluated in comparison with the aircraft’s onboard radar warning system. National Archives An A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft is mounted on a pedestal during a test at the Rome Air Development Center’s Newport Test Site, July 1984. Cluster bombs and an electronics countermeasures pod are mounted on the aircraft’s pylons. National Archives The Stockbridge research site, located 16 miles southwest of Griffiss, was reserved for static testing with larger aircraft. A B-52 was acquired in 1974, and in 1986 the aforementioned C-130 Hercules arrived at the base. A view of an upside-down B-52 Stratofortness aircraft mounted on a pedestal at the Rome Air Development Center Stockbridge site, September 1979. Antennas around the B-52 are part of a new antenna measurement test facility. The new system allows engineers to determine the effectiveness of aircraft antennas without a test flight. National Archives Positioning aircraft upside-down for antenna testing had distinct benefits for the Air Force. As Richard Rabe, whose career was spent mainly studying the effects of electromagnetic energy on antenna capability at the RADC’s Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis Facility (EMCAF) noted previously, placing aircraft upright on pedestals would ruin tests due to the pedestals themselves getting in the way. “The way to solve that problem was totally placing the aircraft upside-down. With antennae on the belly of the plane and the belly facing the sky, we could rotate, tip and spin the plane any way we wanted and the pedestal would be safely below the aircraft and out of the way.” An F-4 Phantom II aircraft is removed from a 30-foot-high test pedestal prior to being turned over and remounted, March 1980. From this test pedestal, at the Rome Air Development Center, aircraft antennas can be tested and evaluated in various flight positions. National Archives In terms of the broader benefits for the Air Force, Dr. Michael Hayduk, deputy director of the Information Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL/RI), has noted in the past that the RADC’s approach to RF measurement “has saved the Air Force countless hours and dollars over traditional flight testing, which is exemplary in our success in prioritizing time, cost and efficiency in the Air Force.” With regard to testing of the YF-16, Gregory Zagar of the AFRL’s RI has said previously that, owing to the fact that the aircraft could be mounted in various positions and be exposed to testing from different spots around the test site due to the nature of the landscape, “a single ten-minute rotation of the airframe at Newport resulted in more antenna pattern data than that collected in one hour of flight test time, at significantly lower cost, and risk.” An F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft is mounted upside-down onto a 30-foot pedestal at the Rome Air Development Center’s Newport Site, May 1983, for evaluation of the ASPJ and ALR-69 antenna systems. From the positioner, the aircraft can be tested as if it were in flight without the high coast of flight testing. National Archives Collecting antenna pattern data in this manner has been important for the Air Force because the physical appearance of aircraft, even of the same type, can drastically differ based on specific stores configurations. As such, the placement of fuel tanks, missiles, bombs, dispensers, and pods in different combinations all have an impact on the effectiveness of aircraft antennae systems. Both RADC and Griffiss underwent changes into the 1990s, but this did not stop antenna and RF system testing. In 1991, RADC was re-named the Rome Laboratory, constituting one of the Air Force’s four ‘super-laboratories’ — the others being the Armstrong Laboratory in Texas, the Phillips Laboratory in New Mexico, and the Wright Laboratory in Ohio. The Rome Laboratory specializes in command, control, and communications research and development, and is now home to the aforementioned AFRL/RI; the Air Force’s premier research organization for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) and Cyber technologies. A crew assigned to Rome Laboratory’s Newport, NY test site prepares to hoist a modified YF-22 airframe to a pedestal for antenna measurement tests, June 1994. During initial testing, over 400,000 antenna measurements will be taken. National Archives In 1995, Griffiss AFB was closed as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, and is now home to the Griffiss Business and Technology Park. However, the off-base Rome Laboratory was retained, alongside the Eastern Air Defense Sector (EADS) of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Since then, the Upside-Down Air Force has continued to be used for testing out new electronic warfare capabilities, while newer aircraft have also been added. In 2014, for example, a full-scale F-35C model was turned upside-down and mounted on a pedestal at the Newport test site in order to measure antenna patterns. The photo collage shows the process to permit measurements to be taken on the numerous antennas on the belly of the airframe, 2014. Peter Ricci/AFRL Image It should be noted that the Upside-Down Air Force is just one part of a vast infrastructure that the Department of Defense has created for electromagnetic testing of various vehicle types, which you can read more about in these past War Zone pieces. In addition, beyond emissions, radar cross section testing also frequently involves aircraft being bolted to pedestals, and often upside down in a similar fashion to the those seen above. So if you happen to be walking through the countryside of central New York state, there’s a good chance you could end up seeing some of the Air Force’s upside-down aircraft, which have played an important role there for over half a century. Phoney maintenance revisited By Roger Alder May 9, 2024 Note: See photo in the original article. As we emphasise Maintenance Month, we revisit this insightful 2019 article, shedding light on the crucial yet often overlooked aspect of aviation safety: maintenance practices. Delving into the intricacies of maintenance procedures, it serves as a timely reminder of the vital role maintenance plays in ensuring the safety and reliability of aircraft operations. ‘Never, in the history of aviation maintenance, have so many been distracted by so little.’ With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill, who was paying respect to WWII Battle of Britain air aces. The ‘so little’ I refer to in this article is that thin, slick smart phone in your pocket. Recently I stepped through the small side door of a maintenance hangar at a regional airport and froze on the spot. Half a wingspan away was an aircraft technician leaning on the aeroplane in animated conversation, with a smart phone in his left hand, gazing into space while ratcheting out a lower rear spark plug from the engine with his right hand. At that moment, to his complete surprise, the spark plug came out of the cylinder. His conversation suddenly became disjointed as he tried holding up his end of the conversation while doing a juggling act with the phone, socket, ratchet and spark plug. image: engineer checking spark plugs | CASA Despite his desperate efforts, the hardware and spark plug dropped inside the cowl, rattling and rolling as they fell out on the hangar floor. The phone had won. I just turned and left, closing the door behind me. If you are reading this on your device while actually working on an aircraft, then please take safety action immediately and step away from the aircraft—but keep reading, because you have in your hand the most disruptive device on the planet; a direct threat to your safety and to aviation safety due to the distraction it brings, and it needs to be tamed. Very few people may remember when phones first became mobile in cars. They needed to be in a car because they were bulky and something the size of a car battery was needed for power, and a car was needed to mount the antenna image: Civil Aviation Safety Authority Then, one day, everything changed. A mobile phone salesman appeared at the hangar door where I was working with a group of ‘subbies’ (subcontract LAME’s) doing maintenance on a Fokker F27. The jaw-dropping thing was that he was actually carrying a mobile phone in one hand. As memory serves, these technological marvels were equipped with an extendable antenna you could go fishing with, a full-size hand piece joined by coiled wire to a transceiver with a battery the size of a house brick and as heavy and capable of jump-starting your car. Despite the hefty price tag, he sold about five, and drove off. The dust had hardly settled when it started. As ‘subbies’, we were always looking for the next job to try and ensure a steady income. Here was a real game changer, a phone in the hand being worth much more than two in the … (well, one at home and one in the car if you could afford it), but how could anyone call you about a job if they didn’t know your brand-new mobile phone number? It was only minutes before I heard weird one-way conversations coming from odd corners of the hanger and in the aircraft, as the excited new mobile phone owners called friends and employers to give out their new contact number. image: © iStock | zozzzzo These phones had a short battery life, had no ‘apps’, did not take pictures, could not navigate, play movies or do text messaging, and yet they were so disruptive to the work flow that the supervisor banned them from the work area within the hour. Things sort of returned to normal, but the world was never quite the same again, because folks were now distracted, listening out for their phone to ring—which is the distraction you have while not actually having a phone distracting you (more on that later). Oh, and the phones all had exactly the same ringtone! I didn’t realise it at the time, but I had just witnessed a once-in-a-lifetime ripple in the time-space continuum which has become a global pandemic with no signs of abating. It would be fashionable to call it a tsunami, but a tsunami recedes. Because this gateway to the universe is now in our pocket, its distractive capability looks set to continue to expand exponentially. Distraction is a deadly enemy. While reinstalling the main fuel filter on the starboard engine of a piston twin during a 100-hourly inspection, the LAME was interrupted by another maintainer who asked for help in synchronising the magnetos on that engine. Magneto timing completed, everyone went for morning tea. A few flight-hours later, the starboard engine caught fire in mid-air, the wing spar failed, and the fuel tank exploded. The aircraft rolled over and fell to earth as a ball of fire. I shall never forget the picture of six caskets, lids held down with the funeral parlour’s version of a brass wing nut. The LAME had been distracted. The fuel filter connection was never properly tightened, allowing highly volatile Avgas fuel to spray onto the engine as it came loose. Today and into the future, the opportunity for distraction is much worse. We have this problem of addictive and fatal distraction from mobile phones, which is so bad that the cities of Melbourne and Sydney have embedded traffic lights in the footpath of key pedestrian crossings to try and stop downwards looking ‘phone-zombies’ from walking out into fast-moving traffic and killing themselves. What is going on? Clinical Psychologist Dr Danielle Einstein makes three good points in her response to the question about banning smart phones in school. I only have room for two: ‘Smartphone apps and the anticipation of messages prompt dopamine release, creating addiction.’ Addiction? Correct. Addiction has many indicators such as loss of control over the amount and frequency of use, a craving and compulsive using and continued use in the face of adverse consequences. Social media engineers openly admit that their apps are deliberately designed not only to be attractive, but addictive, because the body releases dopamine with every reaction with social media, games, etc., and so you ‘need’ to be constantly connected to others via calls, texting and responding to alerts. ‘The mere presence of one’s phone consumes attention even when it’s not being checked. It’s been shown we have reduced working memory capacity and fluid intelligence when our phone is upside down, silent on our desk compared to when it is in another room,’ Einstein states. By now you might be getting just a little defensive and think while this is true of others it’s not true of you. Perhaps you would like to argue that the phone is your source of approved data for doing the job. This may be true, but does anyone think they can use their phone undetected? Every call and internet access logs an exact time date and data provider. An accident investigation could easily discover when a mobile phone was used and for what, and a case for neglect of duty of care due to phone distraction could be proven to have existed. Trying to tame smartphone addiction can be quite difficult and there are some complex and comprehensive phone usage policies around, but I think the simplest is the best. Treat the hangar as a sterile environment. If working solo (the very time you think you will need it the most) either put the phone in a separate location from where you are working or turn it off, so that you are not tempted to pick up whenever it rings, or to fill in those boring moments when doing something that you have done many times before. Are you suffering the beginnings of phone separation anxiety as you read that? Sorry but it seems you may well be addicted. Again, an aircraft owner-operator might want to visit and observe a prospective maintenance organisation’s mobile phone policy. They probably don’t want to be paying for things like, well, lost time due to social media usage and dropped spark plugs. Oh yes, and before I go, just the one question: Hands up all those who want to fly in an aircraft subjected to phoney maintenance? I see no hands. (With apologies to Lord Nelson and his blind eye) ‘Son of Concorde’ company’s superfactory will produce 33 supersonic aircraft a year • Commercial supersonic flights are close to becoming a reality • Boom Supersonic is leading the way with its incredible superfactory • This is where its Overture jet will be produced Published on Jun 11, 2024 at 3:23 PM (UTC+4) by Andie Reeves Last updated on Jun 14, 2024 at 1:53 PM (UTC+4) Edited by Tom Wood Note:See photos videos in original article. Boom Supersonic is spearheading the return of supersonic flight – and many just hope that it would hurry up and get here, already. Its first airliner, Overture, will be able to reach New York from London in 3.5 hours. This ‘Son of Concorde’ will be produced in the company’s new superfactory, which is set to be finished by the end of the year. Once complete, it will turn out an impressive amount of supersonic aircraft every year, totally revolutionizing air travel as we know it. Boom Supersonic’s factory will eventually double in size, producing 66 supersonic planes a year. As it prepares for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the end of 2024, factory construction is ramping up. The company has shared photos and renders of what the assembly line and the planes it will produce will look like, and it’s undeniably exciting. How Boom Supersonic is pioneering the revival of supersonic flight Boom Supersonic Even 20 years after its last flight, the world remains fascinated with Concorde and its incredible speeds. A new generation of companies are tackling why these iconic jets were retired, from fuel usage to noise pollution. Leading the charge is Boom Supersonic, which has already completed successful test flights of Overture. It recently received a first-of-its-kind approval from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to exceed Mach 1 during test flights. The fully developed plane will take its first flight in 2026 and will be carrying passengers by 2029. Its cruising speed will be Mach 1.7, which is a touch slower than Concorde’s Mach 2 but twice as fast as today’s commercial aircraft. Overture will carry 64-80 passengers with a range of 4,250 nautical miles. It addresses some of Concorde’s shortcomings by using sustainable aviation fuel and using four engines to decrease noise. The progress of the Overture Superfactory Boom Supersonic The home of the Overture Superfactory is in North Carolina. The campus is being built in sections, starting with the assembly line that spreads over 150,000 feet. This assembly line will produce 33 aircraft a year, and once the second assembly line is built the production will double to 66 jets. So far the factory’s lights, office, and building signage have been completed. This will be the site where essential technology like advanced aerodynamics and carbon fiber composites will be tested. The company’s CEO pledged to have the Superfactory up and running by the end of 2024. 130 aircraft have already been ordered by airlines such as American Airlines and United Airlines. Meaning we could be able to book a flight on Overture in the next few years. ‘Son of Concorde’ company’s superfactory will produce 33 supersonic aircraft a year What kind of g-forces do birds experience and how does it compare to humans? (AI Generated article.) • Fun fact: The fastest bird in the world, the Peregrine falcon (240 mph in a dive) has pop-up vortex generator feathers delay flow separation during a dive! (But no winglets @Peter Kämpf) – Birds regularly experience up 10-14 G according to this website. After looking at how birds and insects fly, scientists came up with the conclusion as to how birds cope with this is because: Animals will always have some advantages over machines, such as the ability to use their nervous systems to sense subtleties about the environment around them and alter their flight accordingly. Further up near the top, it mentions comparisons between birds and high performance military aircraft, such as this: A Blackbird jet flying nearly 2,000 mph covers 32 of its own body lengths per second. But a common pigeon covers 75 of its body lengths a second. The roll rate of the aerobatic A-4 Skyhawk plane is about 720 degrees per second. The roll rate of a barn swallow is more than 5,000 degrees per second. Some military aircraft can withstand gravitational forces of 8-10 G (Earth's gravity is equal to 1 G). Many birds routinely experience G-forces greater than 10 G and up to 14 G. According to another website the reason humans can't cope with high g's as well is because: Every bit of our muscular-skeletal system is naturally crafted to deal with Earth’s gravity. Were you to travel to a planet that had a more significant gravity, a more massive planet with 5 G’s for example, you would either be unable to lift yourself off the ground, our the new weight-force would be so much that the air would be forced out of your lungs and your eyes would explode (something gruesome for sure). What kind of g-forces do birds experience and how does it compare to humans? FAA Sets Conditions for Airbus A321XLR Novel Fuel Tank The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed special conditions for the Airbus A321XLR. Contents Background: Integral Fuel Tank Configuration Concerns with the Integral Tank Proposed FAA Conditions This has come about because the Extended Long Range (XLR) variant will have a novel or unusual design feature. The design incorporates an integral rear center tank (RCT). The current airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the novel, ‘non-standard’ design. Applicable regulations do not allow for fire-safety performance of the fuel-tank skin or structure in a post-crash external fuel-fed ground fire. Accordingly, the proposed special conditions now set by the FAA contain the additional safety standards considered necessary to establish a suitable level of safety. Background: Integral Fuel Tank Configuration On September 16, 2019, Airbus applied for an amendment to an existing Type Certificate. This was to include the new Model A321neo XLR series airplane. The proposed Airbus Model A321XLR series airplane incorporates an integral RCT. This tank is a “center” fuel tank, which if approved, would be located in the airplane fuselage rather than in its wings. Essentially, it would be in an area of the lower section of the fuselage. It would partially replace the aft cargo compartment of the basic A321 airplane. The top of the tank would be directly below the floor of the passenger cabin. The fuel tank would be ‘‘integral’’ to the airplane, in that its walls would be part of the airplane structure. Concerns with the Integral Tank The FAA expressed a concern with the location of the integral RCT. Essentially, it is installed in a location that may be exposed to the direct effects of post-crash ground fires. The current airworthiness standards applicable to the Model A321XLR do not contain specific standards for post-crash fire-safety performance of fuel-tank skin or structure. In short, an integral fuel tank was not envisaged when the FAA originally set out requirements. These requirements are laid out to ensure the protection of aircraft occupants in the event of fire. Traditionally, main and auxiliary fuel tanks are located in the wing assemblies or within cargo holds. Unlike the proposed integral RCT on the A321XLR, these ‘traditional’ fuel tanks are covered under existing regulations. They are not expected by the FAA or manufacturers to be exposed to the direct effects of post-crash ground fire. Proposed FAA Conditions The FAA will issue, after notice and comment, a set of special conditions. These conditions specifically address the novel or unusual aspect of the A321neo XLR’s integral RCT. One such condition involves the assurance that relevant parts of the fuselage resist penetration from an external fuel fed fire. Other concerns centre around post-crash fire occupant survivability in the event of a fuel tank breach or structural failure. Thus, the proposed special conditions address standards for post-crash fire-safety performance of fuel-tank skin or structure. They propose a requirement to prevent the ignition of fuel vapor during an external fuel-fed ground fire. The FAA intends for this requirement to suitably protect aircraft occupants in the event of such a fire. Industry analysts have questioned whether the proposed changes set out by the FAA may restrict the range of the aircraft. According to a Reuters report, Airbus have reiterated that there would be no significant impact from the proposed requirements. The FAA’s decision, while incorporating fire safety measures, allows Airbus to progress with the A321XLR program. With this hurdle cleared, the manufacturer can proceed with deliveries of the A321XLR. Airbus has previously delayed the delivery schedule until the second quarter of 2024. Explainer-How Boeing's Starliner Can Bring Its Astronauts Back to Earth By Reuters June 24, 2024, at 3:23 p.m. By Joey Roulette Note: See photos and video in the original article. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Problems with Boeing's Starliner capsule, still docked at the International Space Station (ISS), have upended the original plans for its return of its two astronauts to Earth, as last-minute fixes and tests draw out a mission crucial to the future of Boeing's space division. \ NASA has rescheduled the planned return three times, and now has no date set for it. Since its June 5 liftoff, the capsule has had five helium leaks, five maneuvering thrusters go dead and a propellant valve fail to close completely, prompting the crew in space and mission managers in Houston to spend more time than expected pursuing fixes mid-mission. Here is an explanation of potential paths forward for Starliner and its veteran NASA astronauts, Barry "Butch" Wilmore and Sunita "Suni" Williams. THE CURRENT SITUATION Starliner can stay docked at the ISS for up to 45 days, according to comments by NASA's commercial crew manager Steve Stich to reporters. But if absolutely necessary, such as if more problems arise that mission officials cannot fix in time, it could stay docked for up to 72 days, relying on various backup systems, according to a person familiar with flight planning. Internally at NASA, Starliner's latest targeted return date is July 6, according to this source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Such a return date would mean that the mission, originally planned for eight days, instead would last a month. Starliner's expendable propulsion system is part of the craft's "service module." The current problems center on this system, which is needed to back the capsule away from the ISS and position it to dive through Earth's atmosphere. Many of Starliner's thrusters have overheated when fired, and the leaks of helium - used to pressurize the thrusters - appear to be connected to how frequently they are used, according to Stich. Stich said recent test-firings of the thrusters while Starliner remains docked gave mission teams confidence in a safe return, though tests and reviews are ongoing. The mission management team, made up of NASA and Boeing personnel, is scrutinizing data on the propulsion issues, running simulations in Houston and considering how to fix them, such as by updating software or changing how the hardware is used. Once NASA officials give the team a go-ahead for a return, Starliner's thrusters would be used to undock the capsule from the ISS and begin a roughly six-hour journey home, gradually tightening its orbit before plunging into Earth's atmosphere for a landing, assisted by parachutes and airbags, at one of several potential locations in the southwestern United States. This is Starliner's first mission to orbit carrying astronauts - the final test needed before NASA can certify it as the U.S. space agency's second ride to the ISS. It would join SpaceX's Crew Dragon, which has dominated the government and nascent private markets for human spaceflight amid Starliner's years-long delays. IF THE UNEXPECTED HAPPENS Even with the propulsion system issues, NASA has said Starliner still would be capable of returning the astronauts to Earth if absolutely necessary - that is, if the capsule must serve as an escape pod from the ISS in an emergency or if any of Starliner's perishable items - such as its solar panels - show signs of expiring earlier than planned. Unlike Starliner's current mission, NASA did not set a scheduled return date for Crew Dragon's first mission carrying astronauts in 2020. That mission ultimately lasted 62 days because the astronauts needed to help out on ISS maintenance because the space station was short-staffed at the time. IF STARLINER CANNOT BE USED If Starliner is deemed incapable of safely returning Wilmore and Williams to Earth, one option would be sending them home aboard Crew Dragon, which ferried four astronauts to the station in March and is able to fit more people in an emergency. That scenario, considered unlikely, would undoubtedly be embarrassing for Boeing. But NASA and Boeing officials, as well as engineers familiar with the program, told Reuters nothing about Starliner's current problems indicates this would be needed. In such a scenario, Starliner's fate would depend on various factors including the extent of its technical issues. The last time a NASA astronaut needed an alternative ride home came in 2022, when Russia's Soyuz capsule sprang a coolant leak after delivering to the station two cosmonauts and American astronaut Frank Rubio. NASA had considered Crew Dragon as an alternative ride home for Rubio but he eventually used an empty Soyuz capsule that Russia launched as a rescue craft. Rubio's mission was extended from six months to a bit more than a year - 371 days - a record-breaking duration for an American in space. (Reporting by Joey Roulette; Editing by Will Dunham) Boeing 747s have a secret room passengers will never notice • Every Boeing 747 has a secret compartment people never notice • The compartment has room for up to 15 people • Only the cabin crew can use it Published on Jun 21, 2024 at 5:39 PM (UTC+4) by Alessandro Renesis Last updated on Jun 22, 2024 at 5:15 PM (UTC+4) Edited by Amelia Jean Hershman-Jones Note: See photos and videos in the original article. The Boeing 747 is still an absolute legend – despite being replaced. People still talk about it in the same way they talk about a vintage car when the modern version is unveiled. And we’re still finding out things we didn’t know: specifically a secret room aboard every Boeing 747 that most passengers don’t know about. The 747 was the world’s largest commercial aircraft when it was launched, and it’s also been used as an Air Force One for the U.S. President, as well as a private jet for the mega-rich. And because it’s being used by so many different airlines, and therefore customized in so many different ways, it’s no surprise that we’re still learning new things about it. As for this secret compartment, it’s there for a very good reason. The 747 has a tiny secret room, which is used by the crew for naps on particularly long flights. It’s quite cramped but the secret room features anywhere between 10 and 15 beds, depending on the flight, per The Guardian. Perhaps the limited numbers that can get inside is the reason so few have heard about it. For short-haul flights, a crew of 8-10 people is generally required, whereas for longer flights, it’s usually a crew of at least 15. Companies like Lufthansa and Qantas used to have a lot of 747s, but this is changing quite rapidly. Qantas, for example, currently operates a fleet of around 125 aircraft, mostly Airbus A330, A380, as well as Boeing 737 and 787. Qantas uses the Airbus A350-1000, which is quite massive, for the so-called ‘Project Sunrise’, ie non-stop flights connecting Europe to Australia. Even though the record for the world’s longest flight will likely never be beaten, Qantas may soon be able to break the current record, which is held by Singapore Airlines. Curt Lewis