March 12, 2025 - No. 11

In This Issue 

: Common misconceptions about unleaded avgas 

: Mechanic’s improper servicing of magneto leads to total loss of engine power 

: Embraer authorizes Fly Across MRO as service center in Mexico 

: Supersonic To Hawaii: Boom’s Test Ends, But Can It Really Fly?

: Air Force pauses deliveries of Boeing’s KC-46 tanker 

: GA advocate raises alarm about California unleaded avgas court motion 

: JetZero teams with Delta to take the first blended-wing body commercial jetliner closer to reality 

: Compromised oil pressure line fitting proves fatal for two 

: Rising GPS interference risks planes and critical systems, can atomic clocks save us? 

: AAR signs exclusive PW4000 agreement with Chromalloy

: Inside the mile-long factory line where America's F-35 stealth fighter jets are made 


 


 


 


Common misconceptions about unleaded avgas
By Ben Visser
March 7, 2025 

It took close to two decades for U.S. automobiles to transition from leaded fuel to unleaded fuel. (Photo by elljay via Pixabay)

Whenever an article on unleaded 100 octane avgas is published, a few of the same questions always come up.

For instance, many readers will comment that automobiles switched from leaded fuels to unleaded fuels with no major problems, so why can’t that be done with avgas?
Well, they didn’t really solve the problem, it just sort of went away.

When I started at Shell in 1967, emission controls on automobiles were just starting in California and went nationwide in 1968.

At that time the EPA announced the lower limits for the next number of years. It was obvious that by 1975 cars would need catalytic mufflers in order to pass the limits set by the EPA. Since leaded fuels poison catalytic converters, unleaded fuels would be needed.

In 1970, GM announced that, starting in 1971, all of its models would run on 87 R+M/2 octane unleaded fuel. Except for a few rare models, such as the Chrysler Lean Burn cars, all of the automobile manufacturers followed suit.

Then for 1975 models, the EPA decreed that unleaded gasoline should have a smaller diameter pump nozzle. All catalytic converter-equipped vehicles had to have a restrictor in the fuel fill neck that had a hole small enough that the new unleaded fuel nozzle would fit into it, but the larger leaded fuel nozzles would not.

Oil companies continued to market leaded fuels until 1988 when the EPA banned leaded automotive fuel altogether.

Part of the reason behind the ban was because people were buying the higher octane cheaper leaded grade of gasoline and using it in their catalytic converter-equipped cars.

I remember going into convenience stores where they sold adaptors that featured one end that fit over the larger leaded fuel nozzle and the other end was a 4-inch tube designed to fit into the restrictor plate in the vehicle.
(Photo by Engin Akyurt)

The bottom line was that leaded auto gas was available for 17 years after the car manufacturers started building cars with lower compression ratios and hardened exhaust valve seats, so that all post-1971 vehicles should not have exhaust valve recession problems.

In addition, they almost all had liquid-cooled heads versus higher operating temperatures found in air-cooled aircraft engines, as well as lower operating loads at cruise.

Then after 17 years, assuming 10,000 miles a year, if the car engine had a burnt valve, it was worn out and needed replacing anyway.

Also, if a car had a mechanical issue, it could just coast to the side of the road and then be towed to the shop and no one would even notice.

An air-cooled aircraft cruising at 70% load at 8,000 feet AGL is much more likely to develop engine roughness and loss of power. If that occurs over a highly populated city, it could create a very serious problem that will be reported on the evening news nationwide.

An additional factor of comparing automobiles and general aviation aircraft is the replacement rate for cars versus aircraft. If you look at cars in the parking lot of a mall, you will find very few 20-year-old cars. But if you go to an airport, you will find very few aircraft newer than 20 years old.

So the automotive world had a 17-year overlap of leaded fuel until only unleaded fuel was available and they only had minor problems with exhaust valve recession.

In the aviation world they are planning a cold turkey replacement of 100LL with an unleaded fuel to be used in all general aviation aircraft, including orphans and older aircraft, and do not expect any problems. What could go wrong?

Another comment I hear is that aircraft owners think it will be great to go to 100-hour oil changes with unleaded avgas.

But you can do that now. The University of Illinois has been running 100-hour oil changes for years as long as the school’s aircraft are run at least 30 hours a month.

One of the issues we have is that manufacturers specify oil changes either every 50 hours or every four months.

But many pilots do not remember the part about every four months, then wonder why their cam is flat when they only fly 20 hours a year and change the oil only every two or three years.

That leads to a worst-case scenario: What will happen when aircraft owners only change the oil every five years on unleaded avgas?

The third comment I hear is that 100LL is the only leaded fuel still in use in the world, followed quickly by the fact that there is only one plant in the world that produces the tetraethyllead (TEL) that is added to 100LL.

First, take a look in the VP Racing Fuels catalog, where you will find a number of leaded fuels available.

And then there is the concern about something terrible happening at the one plant in the UK that produces TEL, such as a fire or explosion.

Before I retired, I was at an ASTM meeting and I asked the representative from the company that produced TEL at that time whether this was a concern. He said his company was aware of this concern, but were in contact with plants in other countries that could be brought on line in less time than it would take to use up the company’s existing inventory of TEL.

I do not know if this is still completely true, but if there is money to be made, someone, somewhere will make it.



 


 


 


Mechanic’s improper servicing of magneto leads to total loss of engine power
By General Aviation News Staff
March 7, 2025 

The pilot reported that about 15 minutes into the flight the Cessna 177’s engine “backfired a couple times” and 5 to 10 seconds later the engine lost total power, although the propeller continued to rotate.

The flight instructor assumed control of the airplane, established a 75-knot glide speed, and attempted to restart the engine, but without success.

The CFI chose a field near Travelers Rest, South Carolina, notified air traffic control of his intention, and landed in the field.

During the landing roll in the recently-plowed field, while at a slow groundspeed, the nosewheel settled into the mud and the airplane nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.

As a result of the nose over the owner reported warping of the fuselage and both wings and a bent frame at the main landing gear.

Post-accident examination of the engine revealed that the single-drive dual magneto did not produce spark at any of the spark plugs during rotation of the engine using the starter, or when the magneto was rotated using a tool following removal from the engine, or when it was operated on a test bench at the manufacturer’s facility.

Neither of the contact assemblies, which were properly secured, would open during hand rotation of the rotating magnet.

With rotation of the magnet and the contact assembly points closed, the electrical path was shorting to ground, and not the normal path to the ignition leads.

Disassembly inspection of the magneto revealed the left and right cam followers were worn about 0.022 inch and 0.020 inch less than the minimum specification for a new part, which was insufficient to open the contact assembly points.

The contact assembly gap, when open, was specified to be between 0.012 inch and 0.024 inch, with a median value of 0.018 inch. The examination revealed that both cam followers exhibited accelerated wear and heat signatures and both felts were blackened and dry.

Close-up view of the left cam follower and felt. Note the heat discoloration and distortion of the cam follower. (NTSB Photo)

Review of the engine maintenance records revealed that a factory overhauled magneto was installed on Dec. 31, 1979, at tachometer time of 180. The magneto remained in service until July 24, 2019, when, at tachometer time 1,542.3, a 500-hour service was performed.

According to the logbook entry, all parts were reused. The magneto remained in service from that date until the accident. The airplane’s last annual inspection was performed on Dec. 12, 2022, at tachometer time 1,635.0.

The mechanic who performed the 500-hour inspection of the magneto reported that at the time of the inspection both cam followers were in satisfactory condition.
He initially indicated that during the inspection he cleaned the oil impregnated breaker cam using electrical contact cleaner, but later indicated that he just wiped it using a clean cloth.

As part of the magneto inspection, he lubricated each cam follower felt with a mixture of STP and heavy weight engine oil.

He did notice a drift of the magneto to engine timing before the service, but he did not notice any drift of the magneto to engine timing during two subsequent annual inspections after the service was performed.

The mechanic who performed the airplane’s last annual inspection reported he did not recall whether there was any drift of the magneto to engine timing. As part of the engine inspection, he did not remove the cover of the magneto or access any internal components of it.

A review of the manual that the mechanic used to perform the 500-hour service of the magneto revealed that the oil impregnated breaker cam was specified to be cleaned using a clean, dry, lint-free cloth, and each cam follower felt was specified to be lubricated using 2 or 3 drops of 10-86527 lubricant (a high-temperature lubricant for breaker cams).

Continental Service Bulletin (SB) 643C, revised on July 21, 2017, specified that magnetos are electro-mechanical devices using rotating parts subjected to the same service treatment, environmental conditions, and wear as the engine.

The SB also specified that magnetos older than June 1, 2015, must be overhauled or replaced at the expiration of five years since the date of original manufacture or last overhaul, or four years since the magneto was placed in service, whichever occurs first, without regard to operating hours.

Service bulletins are not mandatory for Part 91 operators.

Probable Cause: Maintenance personnel’s improper servicing of the magneto, which resulted in its accelerated wear, failure, and the total loss of engine power.

NTSB Identification: 106949

To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.

This March 2023 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.






 


Embraer authorizes Fly Across MRO as service center in Mexico
6 March, 2025

MEXICO - Embraer announced the addition of Mexico-based Fly Across MRO (aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul) to its network of authorized service centers for business jets.

This agreement will empower the national service provider to provide base maintenance for the Phenom and Praetor series at Toluca International Airport, as well as the Legacy 450 and Legacy 500 jets.

Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, including aircraft on ground (AOG) and walk-in services, will also be offered.

The authorization for Fly Across MRO was given after passing an evaluation process, whereby it ensured that the company met Embraer's standards.

The accreditation positions Fly Across MRO as a key service provider for Embraer aircraft operators, offering maintenance, inspection and repair with the support of one of the most respected manufacturers in the aerospace industry.

“This recognition marks a significant milestone for our company. Embraer's authorization validates our continued efforts to offer world-class services and strengthens our position as a leader in aircraft maintenance in the region,” said Javier Gonzalez, CEO of Fly Across.

“We are fully committed to ensuring that Embraer aircraft operators receive efficient and reliable service that meets the highest international standards,” he said.
For his part, Frank Stevens, vice president of global MRO centers at Embraer, commented that they are pleased to expand its presence in an important market such as Mexico and in a strategic location for its operators.

“Embraer is increasing its presence in the country, and we continue to enhance our service and support capabilities and capacity in Mexico,” he added.

Embraer's dedicated business jet network includes eight Embraer-owned service centers, 44 Embraer authorized service centers in the Americas and 74 worldwide. Embraer Services & Support has also recently doubled its dedicated business jet MRO capacity in the United States with new maintenance lines in Dallas Love Field (Texas), Cleveland (Ohio) and Sanford (Florida).





 


Supersonic To Hawaii: Boom’s Test Ends, But Can It Really Fly?
Hawaii Travel News 
March 7, 2025 

The dream of supersonic travel to Hawaii just soared somewhat closer to reality as Boom’s XB-1 announced it has wrapped up its test program with a second successful supersonic flight. With its groundbreaking “Boomless Cruise” technology, Boom Supersonic aims to revolutionize air travel, including to Hawaii—but not everyone is convinced this vision will take off.

Boom’s ambitious plans have drawn strong opinions from aviation enthusiasts, skeptical industry veterans, and Hawaii travelers. Some see this as a game-changer, while others doubt it will ever take off. With Overture now in development, the real question is whether Hawaii will see supersonic flights or if this is another Concorde-style dream.

Supersonic flight advances.
Boom’s final test flight, its second supersonic flight, took place on February 10, 2025. XB-1 hit Mach 1.18 at 36,514 feet, successfully demonstrating key supersonic capabilities. The flight gathered critical data on aerodynamics, acoustic impacts, and the ability to achieve supersonic speeds without generating the dreaded audible sonic boom on the ground.

With these tests complete, Boom is shifting focus to Overture, the aircraft designed to bring commercial supersonic travel back to the skies.
Some travelers already imagine the possibilities, with one reader saying they would “sign up for supersonic Hawaii-to-Paris in six hours.” Others remain skeptical, questioning whether shaving two hours off a flight from San Francisco to Honolulu is worth the cost.

Pennsylvania State University Acoustical Model of Mach Cutoff Flight
Boomless Cruise: a game changer?
Boomless Cruise redirects the sonic boom upward into the atmosphere, preventing it from reaching the ground. This innovation could allow Overture to achieve supersonic speeds over the U.S. without the noise disruptions that grounded past overland flights. For Hawaii, this could extend beyond typical West Coast routes. Boom claims it can cut travel times from the U.S. West Coast to just three hours—if regulatory and logistical hurdles can be overcome.

A former Concorde ground school attendee dismissed the idea entirely, calling XB-1 “a vanity project” and predicting it “will never make scheduled flights to Hawaii in our lifetime.” Not everyone is ready to rule it out. Some see a strong opportunity here. “If you can get from Oakland to Honolulu gate to gate in two and a half hours, I will be in love with Boom,” wrote another traveler.
From test jet to airliner: the real challenge.
Making the jump from their single-pilot test jet to a commercial airliner remains a massive challenge. Commenters pointed out that XB-1 at just 68 feet long is a fraction of the size and complexity of the planned commercial aircraft. Jon questioned whether Boom could scale up successfully, saying, “Scaling from a single-seat demonstrator to a passenger jet is an entirely different engineering challenge. They’re not even close to proving that part yet.” Others echoed concerns about the leap in engine requirements, manufacturing, and certification. DICKIE_D dismissed the XB-1 as “a publicity stunt,” adding, “Show me a full-size prototype, and then we’ll talk.”
The regulatory hurdles ahead.
While Boom’s technology is promising, FAA regulations remain a significant barrier. Current U.S. aviation law prohibits all supersonic flight over land, regardless of noise impact. Government regulators, often cautious about tourism-related advancements, may resist such a significant change. However, some believe Hawaii’s unique geography makes it an ideal candidate for supersonic travel, even under current rules.

Some readers think Hawaii state officials would try to stop Boom. One commenter argued, “The backwards Hawaii government will never allow Boom. They’d rather force tourists to arrive by outrigger than approve a technological step forward.”
Others believe a policy shift is possible. An aviation enthusiast pointed out, “Hawaii is being used as an example because once you are feet wet off the west coast, you can punch through the number and not worry about sonic boom fines.”

FAA regulations, not Hawaii lawmakers, will ultimately determine if Boom can proceed. Regardless, Hawaii remains one of the few viable U.S. destinations where supersonic travel is possible even under current rules.

Who will fly supersonic to Hawaii?
Even if Boom overcomes regulatory challenges, the question remains about who will pay the price for supersonic travel. Many doubt the average traveler will afford it.
“Another giveaway to the ultra-wealthy,” one commenter wrote. “Rich people don’t care that a ticket will cost upwards of $5,000… If they did, they’d just fly first class on a regular jet with the rest of us.”

Others see the value in speed. A longtime Hawaii traveler pointed out that “we fly first class 97% of the time anyway. If costs are about the same, we’d definitely fly the SST.”

Industry experts also raise concerns about commercial viability. One reader questioned the financial model, asking, “Would you rather get there four hours faster in a cramped aircraft or pay for a more spacious first-class experience? Comfort over speed every time.”

Boom’s vision, whether realistic or not, aligns with Hawaii’s evolving tourism model, where fewer visitors are expected to spend more per trip. If airlines see demand from high-spending travelers willing to pay a premium for speed, supersonic flights to Hawaii could become part of this shift.

Overture’s timeline and what’s next.
With XB-1’s test program complete, Boom is moving full speed ahead with Overture. The company expects its supersonic airliner to roll out by the early 2030s, with test flights targeted before commercial service begins. More precise dates haven’t been provided.

Boom claims Overture will run on 100% sustainable aviation fuel and be far more efficient than Concorde. However, skepticism remains about whether the necessary engines will even exist. One critic dismissed the project outright, saying, “The airplane will never exist, not least of which is because its engine will never exist. 
The project is a scam.”

Despite these doubts, airline interest continues. United Airlines has ordered 15 Overture aircraft, and Japan Airlines has invested in Boom’s development. Whether those planes will serve Hawaii remains unknown.

We invite your comments. Mahalo!






 


Air Force pauses deliveries of Boeing’s KC-46 tanker
The decision to pause deliveries was made on Feb. 27 by the service’s KC-46A program office “due to the identification of in the ‘outboard fixed-trailing-edge support structure’” of the two planes, an Air Force spokesperson said.

By  Valerie Insinna and Michael Marrow
on March 03, 2025 at 3:05 PM


AFA WARFARE 2025 — The Air Force has instructed Boeing to halt deliveries of the KC-46 tanker after cracks were found on two production aircraft awaiting their handoff to the Air Force.

The decision to pause deliveries was made on Feb. 27 by the service’s KC-46A program office “due to the identification of in the ‘outboard fixed-trailing-edge support structure’” of the two planes, an Air Force spokesperson said.

“The damage does not pose a safety-of-flight concern; however, identified cracks must be repaired before returning an aircraft to service,” The spokesperson said. “Boeing, the Program Office, and Air Mobility Command are working to quickly identify the root cause and develop both a near and long-term way ahead.”

A source with knowledge of the program told Breaking Defense that the issue revolves around cracks found on the aileron hinges of two aircraft yet to be delivered to the Air Force. The service and Boeing have been aware since 2018 that the KC-46 — like its parent aircraft, the commercial 767 — could develop cracks to the aileron hinges over time, but the discovery of cracking on brand new aircraft led the service to stop deliveries.

“We are working closely with the customer to assess a potential issue on KC-46 aircraft and to mitigate any potential impact to the fleet and in-production airplanes,” a Boeing spokesperson said in a statement.

The War Zone was first to report news of the pause.

The KC-46 has experienced numerous technical issues and schedule delays during its development and fielding, chiefly the redesign of the aircraft’s Remote Vision System — a collection of sensors that allow the boom operator to refuel a receiver airplane without visually looking out a window — which is expected to be fielded in 2026.

Those issues and others have resulted in billions of dollars in cost overruns for Boeing, which is locked into a fixed-price contract that holds it responsible for paying costs above a certain threshold. Losses on the KC-46 amounted to $2 billion in 2024, Boeing stated in regulatory filings released in January.

The Air Force last paused KC-46A deliveries for a two month period beginning in March 2024, which occurred so that the service could inspect production and fielded aircraft for a broken component on the aircraft’s boom.

The service recorded a new “category 1” technical deficiency for the program a couple months later after discovering that vibrations from a fuel pump that were damaging bleed air ducts, Air Force officials told reporters in July.






 


GA advocate raises alarm about California unleaded avgas court motion
By General Aviation News Staff 
March 4, 2025

A California state court is preparing to hear a motion March 5, 2025, brought forth by the California Center for Environmental Health (CEH), to force several California FBOs and general aviation fuel distributors to solely offer a new unleaded avgas.

The court action is “premature and counterproductive,” and could “cause undue harm to the general aviation community,” according to officials with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA).

“There is a concerted effort currently underway to ensure that there is a safe and efficient transition to an unleaded future for piston-engine aircraft,” said Pete Bunce, GAMA president and CEO, referring to the efforts of the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative, which debuted in 2022 with the mission to make GA lead-free by 2030.

“We have seen some key milestones reached to progress efforts, but there is still significant work needed before a full-scale transition can take place,” he continued. “The CEH motion is based on a brand new high-octane unleaded fuel, which is currently available at just two California airports. Although the FAA issued an STC allowing for its use in airplanes, this is the only aviation fuel that has not been subject to a stakeholder consensus peer review process and does not have the endorsement for use by piston-engine and aircraft Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) or other stakeholders, such as distributors and FBOs, due to lack of transparency and understanding of the new fuel’s composition and performance properties. Additionally, this fuel cannot be used in piston helicopters.”

The fuel he’s referring to is General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s G100UL, which received approval from the FAA in September 2022.

This approval and the sale of the unleaded fuel at some California FBOs triggered the CEH to file the latest court motion based off an agreement the environmental center reached with FBOs years ago where the FBOs agreed to sell only unleaded fuel once an unleaded fuel was available.

But aviation advocates counter that while G100UL is now available for sale, many questions still remain.

“There are also questions and a need for additional information about materials compatibility and safety in both aircraft and fuel distribution infrastructure,” Bunce went on in his prepared statement, released March 3, 2025. “The general aviation industry is committed to supporting a viable unleaded avgas solution, but a forced and premature transition will not be in the interest of the aviation community or public in the long run.”

He adds that there have been notices to the public from Cirrus Aircraft, Lycoming, Piper Aircraft, and Textron Aviation that “there are questions and potential concerns about the specified unleaded avgas product CEH is attempting to prematurely force on the piston aircraft community.”

“In addition to these warnings, aircraft manufacturers Aviat Aircraft, Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, Enstrom Helicopter Corp., Piper Aircraft Inc., Schweizer RSG, and Robinson Helicopters each submitted information to the court that stated the new unleaded avgas variant was not approved or supported by manufacturers for use in their models, given their companies lacked the information necessary to verify its safety and material compatibility,” Bunce said. “Additionally, several aviation trade organizations, including GAMA, submitted declarations to ensure the court was aware of the general aviation piston industry’s relevant perspectives.”

According to court documents, several individual aircraft owners in California also have filed declarations related to adverse issues potentially encountered by using G100UL, Bunce noted.

“Additionally, according to court documents, a California-based FAA Flight Standards District Office has initiated an investigation into some of these possible material incompatibility issues identified in several piston airplanes,” he said. “In the interest of aviation safety, GAMA calls for transparency and openness in a manner consistent with established industry practices for all transportation fuels — a broad stakeholder peer review assessment of new fuel property and performance data through the ASTM consensus standards process or similar — to include collaboration among fuel producers, chemical manufacturers, testing laboratories, fuel distributors and piston-engine aircraft and component manufacturers, etc.”

While G100UL underwent more than a decade of testing by the FAA, it has not been submitted to ASTM and GAMI officials say they have no intention of submitting the fuel to the organization, which develops international standards for products, materials, and services. 

GAMA officials also have called on the FAA to issue a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin or other notice to “properly inform the general aviation community of potential issues and possible airworthiness impacts while the alleged FAA investigations continue and/or mitigation efforts, as determined necessary by the FAA, are developed.”
Want to know more? The public statements and court submitted documents can be found here.





 


JetZero teams with Delta to take the first blended-wing body commercial jetliner closer to reality
The partnership aims to accelerate development of the first major commercial passenger jet redesign, which uses 50-percent less fuel and fights climate change.
Susan Karlin

It’s tough enough bringing the first major redesign of a commercial jetliner to fruition—especially when it looks more like something out of The X-Files than a travel brochure. So, to streamline that journey, JetZero—the first commercial blended-wing body (BWB) aircraft—is teaming with Delta as a potential buyer to troubleshoot operation and design issues from the ground up.

“Our biggest challenge is, `How do you bring an aircraft to market as quickly as possible so that you can have the most impact for your customer?’” says CEO Tom O’Leary, who cofounded JetZero with CTO Mark Page. “We don’t want to zig-zag our way to entry into service. We want to take the cleanest, most direct shot. Because, ultimately, saving time means you’re saving money.”

Not to mention, the environment. The aircraft’s lighter weight and superior aerodynamics aim to deliver the same speed and range as existing midbody jetliners on half the fuel, potentially saving airlines billions of dollars and bringing them closer to an industry goal of zero-carbon flight by 2050. In contrast to the conventional tube and wing design, the tailless BWB combines the wing structure and passenger area, making it look a bit like a flying manta ray. Its shape reduces drag and increases lift, so the plane can cruise at higher altitudes in thinner air on less fuel.

‘WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT A WORLD IN 2050’
JetZero is targeting the underserved midbody, 250-seat class of carriers, which it plans to manufacture domestically. Since its 2021 founding, the Southern California startup has raised $300 million from investors including NASA, Airbus, Alaska Air, and EasyJet, plus a $235 million award from the U.S. Air Force for a demonstrator plane in 2027. The partnership with Delta gives JetZero access to its Sustainable Skies Lab, an R&D and testing accelerator for more sustainable air travel, and Delta TechOps, which streamlines fleet maintenance management. There, experts help refine the economics, engineering, and workflow through the operations and passenger experience lens, such as airport and gating constraints, loading and unloading, cabin configuration, and interior design.
[Rendering: JetZero]

“It’s really expensive and challenging to bring a new aircraft to market,” says Delta CSO Amelia DeLuca. “What we can do is, from the ground up, say, `This is what you need to be the best-in-class from a customer experience, to work for our employees, to maintain this aircraft when it flies. We look at how we would deploy it, and the specs and seat count we would need to put this into market.”

Adds O’Leary: “It’s figuring out what’s going to work or not as quickly as possible. We don’t see any other way to do that other than have a deep interaction with the customers. Delta knows its products better than the manufacturers because they’re operating them days, weeks, months, years, decades; they’re the real experts on all the things we need to get the plane to a point where you fundamentally de-risk it.”

JetZero and Delta have been collaborating since the startup’s inception in 2021 but opted to publicize their partnership in the wake of Delta’s March 3 Centennial and its message for greater sustainability and customer service during the next hundred years. Jet Zero’s fuel-efficiency also enables greater potential range, opening Delta to more destinations. “We want to think about a world in 2050 where we are flying more sustainably, more efficiently, but also opening up new markets and points of connection,” says DeLuca.

ENGINEERING CATNIP
A working commercial BWB would realize a long-held aviation dream that began decades ago but never progressed past prototypes—many involving future JetZero engineers. Page, a chief engineer with NASA’s BWB program in the `90s, is considered one of the fathers of BWBs alongside Robert Liebeck, who developed the first prototype for NASA, and Blaine Rawdon, both JetZero technical advisors.

“Delta’s made up of so many aerospace engineers who learned about Mark Page and BWB technology when they went through school,” says DeLuca. “So as soon as you say that we’re talking to Jet Zero—you know, with Mark Page with BWB—they’re like, `Oh my gosh, I’ve always wanted to make this thing fly.’”



 








Compromised oil pressure line fitting proves fatal for two
By General Aviation News Staff 
March 5, 2025 

Note: See photos in the original article. 

On March 5, 2023, a Piper PA-28-161 was destroyed when it was involved in an accident in Lindenhurst, New York. The flight instructor and one passenger were seriously injured, and the second passenger was fatally injured. Months after the accident, the flight instructor succumbed to his injuries.

Statements to law enforcement and the FAA indicated that the accident flight was a discovery flight, and was a gift from one passenger to her mother, the second passenger.
Flight track information indicated that the airplane departed Runway 32 at Republic Airport (KFRG), Farmingdale, New York, at 1419. The airplane completed a right turn toward the southeast after departure, crossed the coastline, and proceeded over the Atlantic Ocean. The airplane completed numerous left, right, and 360° turns, and then returned toward KFRG. While maneuvering, the airplane’s maximum altitude was about 2,000 feet msl.
When the airplane was on an approximate 3-mile final approach to Runway 32, the flight instructor reported smoke in the cockpit to the tower controller and requested an immediate landing. The controller instructed the airplane to continue straight-in for the runway. The instructor acknowledged the transmission and advised the controller that he was “turning off” the radios.

When on a 2-mile final approach to the runway, the instructor broadcast a “Mayday” transmission and the airplane turned left. The controller reissued the landing clearance and observed smoke emanating from the left side of the airplane as it descended rapidly from view.

Doorbell and surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the accident site recorded the airplane at low altitude and a shallow descent angle as it entered trees, shed sheet metal and major structure, ignited spilled fuel, impacted terrain, and rotated 180°, where it came to rest upright, engulfed in flames. The engine sound was smooth and continuous until ground contact.

Emergency vehicles awaiting the arrival of the airplane at KFRG departed the airport property in search of the airplane after the crash.

The wreckage was examined at the accident site and all major components were accounted for at the scene. The wreckage path was about 470 feet long and oriented about 300° magnetic. The initial impact point was in a tree about 60 feet above the ground. Sheet metal, a section of aileron, wingtip fairing, position lights, and angularly-cut branches were scattered along the wreckage path.

About 350 feet down the wreckage path, two trailered boats were destroyed by burning fuel that spilled from the airplane as it passed overhead.

The main wreckage came to rest in a right-of-way between a commercial property and a railroad bed. The fence that bordered the property extended approximately parallel to the airplane’s flight path and was damaged by impact and fire.

The left wing, with main landing gear attached, came to rest about 50 feet before the main wreckage and was damaged by impact and fire. Concave dents in the leading-edge perpendicular to the direction of flight were consistent with the dimensions of fractured tree branches.

The main wreckage came to rest upright facing approximately opposite the direction of travel. The engine was exposed and was severely damaged by fire. The windscreen, instrument panel, cockpit, cabin area, roof and the empennage were completely consumed by a post-crash fire.

The right wing was attached, damaged by impact and fire, and displaced 90° aft about mid-span.

After recovery of the wreckage from the site, the examination was continued by a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Fire and Explosion Investigator. His examination revealed that the firewall between the engine compartment and fuselage interior had been exposed to fire and exhibited thermal damage on both sides.

Examination of the firewall and components still attached to the cockpit side of the firewall did not reveal any concentrated thermal damage on the firewall panel but did identify two copper tubes associated with the fuel primer pump and a fitting on a copper tube associated with the oil pressure line that exhibited localized areas of melting.
These components exhibited a sharp demarcation between the melted area and the adjacent material. The fuel primer lines were standard equipment consistent with the aircraft design. The fitting on the oil pressure line was not standard equipment and was not consistent with the design of the original oil pressure line.

Additional examination revealed that the fuel primer lines comprised 99.6% copper tubing that measured about 0.125 inches in diameter. The lines could not be positively correlated to the suction and pressure sides of the pump. One of the lines exhibited a melted and tapered end. The other line exhibited areas of varying damage, including areas consistent with melting and re-solidification, as well as an area where the damage had penetrated the tubing through its full thickness.

The oil pressure line comprised a 0.25-inch copper tube that would have extended from the firewall to an oil pressure gauge on the instrument panel. The oil pressure line was equipped with a tee fitting about midspan along its length.

The tee fitting exhibited a concentrated region of melted and missing material. In some areas, the melted region was flanked by intact material on either side. Some of the margins between the melted and intact material exhibited a scalloped-like appearance. The morphology of the melting exhibited by the fitting was consistent with localized extreme temperature, such as that generated by electrical arcing.

The tee fitting, branch line, and melted end fitting were not part of the original oil pressure line design, and what had been connected to the melted fitting was not determined.
According to FAA and maintenance records, the airplane was manufactured in 1980 and was powered by a Lycoming O-320-D3G, 160-horsepower engine. The airplane’s most recent 100-hour inspection was completed Jan. 4, 2023, at 18,866 total aircraft hours and a tachometer time of 3,655.7 hours. According to the maintenance entry in the logbook, “Replaced #4 cylinder with an overhauled assembly…Yellow tag attached.”

Review of the airplane’s maintenance logbooks revealed an entry dated Jan. 16, 2023, at a tachometer time of 3,657.3 hours, which stated, “Pilot reports smoke in cockpit during flight on Jan. 7, 2023. After troubleshooting, flown and tested. Aircraft returned to service with no smoke.”

The most recent entry before the accident was a 50-hour inspection completed on Feb. 27, 2023, at a tachometer time of 3,701.8 hours.
Two flight instructors employed by the flight school each reported that they had previously experienced smoke in the cockpit while flying the airplane. One of the instructors reported that she experienced smoke in the cockpit during landing approach on a discovery flight on Jan. 2, 2023. After landing, she informed the owner of the flight school, who replied, “we just changed the cylinder, what do you expect?”

The instructor stated that no maintenance was performed following this flight and that the airplane was immediately scheduled for another flight.

The other flight instructor and his student reported that they experienced smoke in the cockpit during a flight in the accident airplane on Jan. 7, 2023, while performing touch-and-go takeoffs and landings. The instructor stated that the airplane was taken out of service following this flight.

During a subsequent conversation with the owner of the flight school, the owner reported that the smoke was the result of “some type of spray” that the mechanic had used “in the engine,” and that he (the owner) stated that he had flown the airplane, and it was “perfectly good.”

Conversations with the owner, his lead mechanic, and his employees revealed that the company employed no standard operating procedures, safety officer, safety program, formal safety meetings, formal procedures for documenting maintenance discrepancies and their corrective actions, and had no emergency response plan. At the time of the accident, the employees had no idea who to contact or how to contact them.
According to the owner, “CFIs are independent contractors. Each instructor is a flight school in itself.”

When asked if his airplanes were equipped with fire extinguishers, the owner responded, “As far as I know, all of them have fire extinguishers.”

According to his lead mechanic, “Most of the airplanes have them, but I can’t remember which ones.”

When asked how the fire extinguishers were mounted, he said, “They weren’t. They were tucked in the seat back pocket.”

Probable Cause: An in-flight fire due to a compromised oil pressure line fitting, which resulted in a collision with terrain during a subsequent emergency landing.

NTSB Identification: 106819

To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This March 2023 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.







 


Rising GPS interference risks planes and critical systems, can atomic clocks save us?
Our entire infrastructure hinges on systems that can disrupt low-cost jamming devices.

Updated: Mar 04, 2025 05:22 PM EST

Kaif Shaikh

A surge in GPS jamming has transformed aviation safety, with flights diverting and even crashing due to signal disruptions

On January 17, 2025, a Ryanair flight from London was just moments from touching down in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius when its descent was abruptly aborted. The Boeing 737 MAX 8-200 had descended to approximately 850 feet (259 meters) when an abrupt failure of the aircraft’s critical Global Positioning System (GPS) triggered an immediate climb away from the runway, BBC reports. 

Instead of landing, the pilots diverted nearly 400 km (250 miles) south to Warsaw, Poland. Officials later confirmed that “GPS signal interference” had disrupted the navigation system. This was far from an isolated incident. Over the preceding three months, Lithuanian airspace had reported more than 800 cases of GPS interference, often blamed—at least by authorities in Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland—on Russian jamming activities near NATO’s eastern borders. Although Russia denied responsibility, these interference patterns had already begun to shape a new era of threats in aviation.

Another reminder of the potential dangers lurking behind GPS interference emerged on December 25, 2024, when Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 from Kaku in Azerbaijan to Kadyrov Grozny International Airport in Russia encountered a GPS disruption about 40 minutes after takeoff. 

The aircraft was scheduled to pass through Russian airspace before heading to Kazakhstan’s Aktau International Airport. While the final crash investigation report has not been completed, preliminary findings indicate that the sudden interruption of GPS signals may have played a key role in the sequence of events that ended with a tragic crash landing in Aktau, killing 35 passengers and three crew members.

Although mechanical issues or human error could also have contributed, the mere possibility that GPS disruption might be implicated in a fatal commercial flight accident has heightened global concerns over how heavily modern aviation depends on satellite navigation.

Yet the threat extends well beyond aircraft. Indeed, GPS has become the linchpin for countless vital activities. In addition to directing planes and ships, GPS timing signals synchronize our electrical grids, industrial control systems, communication networks, and banking transactions. As a result, targeted jamming or spoofing, where adversaries feed false signals, can have wide-ranging consequences. 

Warfare zones in Ukraine, the Middle East, Kashmir, and Myanmar have shown that hostile actors view GPS interference not just as a battlefield tactic but also as a way of disrupting an opponent’s infrastructure. Since signal interference has dramatically increased since 2021, many experts believe the problem will only worsen. The immediate challenge is safeguarding our current systems while developing robust technologies to resist these attacks.

The importance and fragility of GPS
GPS was introduced in the 1970s primarily for military use but quickly became indispensable for civilians worldwide. The system uses a network of satellites, each equipped with highly accurate atomic clocks, to broadcast signals down to receivers on Earth. 

A receiver that can pick up signals from at least four satellites can calculate its precise location by measuring how long it takes for each satellite’s signal to arrive. Because these measurements are based on extremely fine increments of time, any small interference in the signal or the clock’s synchronization can significantly degrade the system’s reliability.
GPS’s timing function is critical for far more than just navigation. Financial institutions rely on GPS signals to timestamp high-frequency trades. Power grids use GPS to regulate energy transfers. Telecommunications networks need synchronized timestamps for data transfer, vital to maintaining a stable internet. 


According to a 2019 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the loss of GPS in the United States would cost the country around $1 billion daily—meanwhile, estimates in the UK place potential losses at about £1.4 billion each day. Unsurprisingly, the UK has placed GPS jamming on its national risk register as one of the most significant threats to the country’s infrastructure.

While GPS signals are broadcast from satellites located thousands of miles above Earth, attempts to jam or spoof them come from various sources, some deliberate and others accidental. Military technologies, criminal enterprises, and low-cost jamming devices readily available online all contribute to this rising risk. 

In conflict zones, jamming can degrade an enemy’s weapons systems or force drones and missiles off course. Over the past decade, hostile actors have also used signal interference to sow confusion or discredit an adversary’s competence, particularly in national defense or air traffic safety.


Notably, GPS signals (and those that interfere with them) rely on line-of-sight propagation, meaning that terrain, buildings, or large structures can shield receivers. This partly explains why aircraft at cruising altitude and ships at sea, with little obstruction in their surroundings, are especially vulnerable.

High-stakes incidents and evolving tactics
The events around the Baltic region, where Eastern European NATO states have voiced concerns over repeated jamming, underscore how quickly advanced technology can reshape international relations. Baltic governments have pointed fingers at Russia, stating that their satellites’ transmissions are being blocked or spoofed to demonstrate Russia’s ability to interfere with Western infrastructure at will. 

BBC reports that in March 2024, then-Defence Secretary Grant Shapps from the UK experienced a version of this threat first-hand when the plane he was on lost its GPS signal near Russian territory. Although the disruption was resolved without incident, it illustrated how easily passenger aircraft might be forced into emergencies.

The increasingly chaotic nature of these events raises fears about a potential meltdown if GPS signals were comprehensively jammed or manipulated. In addition to risking mid-air collisions or forced emergency landings, a loss of reliable satellite timing could cripple global commerce and disrupt essential services. 

Even short outages can lead to widespread confusion if thousands of financial transactions are left without reliable timestamps or energy and communication networks are thrown off schedule.

As the impetus to interfere with GPS grows, so does the incentive to find robust countermeasures. The vulnerabilities are well known, yet solutions require technical ingenuity, political will, and substantial funding. In this respect, the parallels to historical navigation crises are striking.

Why atomic clocks matter
As unrelated as it sounds, accurate location tracking relies on precise time measurement. Every GPS satellite carries an atomic clock so accurate that it drifts by just a few billionths of a second each day. A device on Earth uses the signals from multiple satellites, each with a precisely known timestamp, to calculate its position. Therefore, if those signals are jammed or an attacker can spoof inaccurate timestamps, the receiver’s position fix becomes unreliable or impossible.

One obvious solution is to reduce or eliminate dependence on receiving signals from space altogether. This is the impetus behind the development of portable atomic clocks that could reside on Earth, in the navigation device itself, or on a vehicle like a ship or aircraft, thereby removing the need for external satellite timing. 

If you know exactly where you started and precisely track changes in speed and direction while keeping time accurately to a billionth of a second, then you can deduce your real-time position. In principle, no external signal is required, meaning jamming or spoofing from afar won’t disrupt the system.

The UK’s “Time Lords” and their work
In the United Kingdom, the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) has been at the forefront of timekeeping since it developed one of the first practical atomic clocks in 1955. Today, a team led by Dr. Helen Margolis at NPL is developing an optical clock that uses lasers instead of microwaves for an even higher level of precision. 

Optical clocks promise to be 100 times more accurate than the already exceedingly precise cesium clocks that define our current universal measure of time (UTC). The challenge is to move these sophisticated and often bulky lab-based optical clocks into portable packages that can withstand real-world conditions.

This mission has drawn comparisons to the 18th-century quest by clockmaker John Harrison to build a portable marine chronometer robust enough to function accurately in a ship tossed about by ocean waves. Harrison’s invention solved the famous “longitude problem,” enabling long-distance sea travel and fueling a new era of commerce and exploration. 

Just as Harrison revolutionized navigation centuries ago, the scientists at NPL aim to transform modern navigation by freeing it from GPS’s vulnerabilities.

Over the next few years, the UK’s “Time Lords,” a playful nickname bestowed on NPL researchers and other quantum experts, hope to create a national network of four interconnected atomic clocks that businesses could tap into for a secure, ultra-accurate timing reference. 

The intent is that, by 2030, critical aspects of UK infrastructure, ranging from finance to energy to national security, can be synchronized against this resilient timekeeping backbone, ensuring operations even if GPS were disrupted. However, practical deployment for everything from everyday smartphone navigation to commercial flights is still likely more than a decade away.

Progress in the US and other nations 
The UK has been leading quantum timing research, but it is not the only country addressing GPS jamming. It’s no surprise that government agencies, military branches, and private companies have all been working on solutions. Colorado-based Infleqtion, for example, secured $11 million from the US Department of Defense to refine its quantum positioning systems. 

Their portable atomic clock system, dubbed “Tiqker,” is about the size of three pizza boxes stacked together. It uses subatomic interactions to deliver ultra-precise timekeeping that isn’t easily faked or jammed.

Another American startup, SandboxAQ (whose chairman is former Google CEO Eric Schmidt), focuses on a different approach called magnetic navigation. Its technology, known as “AQNav,” involves rapidly measuring Earth’s magnetic field changes. 
Because each planet region has a slightly different magnetic signature, sophisticated AI models can match real-time sensor data to these known signatures, thus determining location without reliance on satellite signals. Although not strictly an atomic clock solution, it aligns with the broader goal of diversifying navigation methods to reduce single points of failure.

Meanwhile, Australia’s Q-CTRL is tackling the sensitivity problems that quantum sensors have in noisy environments such as moving ships and aircraft. Its software acts like noise-canceling headphones, filtering out unwanted interference so delicate quantum sensors can remain accurate even when jostled at sea or in flight. 

By forging partnerships with entities like Airbus, the Australian military, and the UK Navy, the company aims to field-deploy these quantum technologies for improved navigation. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the US Geological Survey collaborate with Q-CTRL on gravity mapping projects that may lead to more advanced geospatial data.

Potential for a new revolution in navigation 
The stakes for all these efforts are immense. Jamming and spoofing are increasingly common, and there is no surefire way to eliminate them without using backup systems. If every plane, ship, drone, power plant, and communications network continues to hinge on GPS’s fragile signals, the consequences of large-scale jamming could be disastrous. 

Yet, just as the onset of reliable marine chronometers in the 18th century unleashed an era of global trade, improved timekeeping technology today has the potential to catalyze economic growth and new services. Super-precise atomic clocks will likely open a host of possibilities that even we can’t fully imagine, much like how the original adoption of GPS in the 1980s eventually gave us real-time ride-sharing, drone deliveries, and always-on geolocation in mobile phones. 

Improving resilience against interference will only accelerate innovation as industries become more confident that the data used to coordinate their operations can be relied upon in almost any situation.

For now, though, many of these cutting-edge solutions remain at the prototype stage. Current portable quantum clocks can cost up to $100,000, and packing them into robust, easily maintainable devices is not trivial. Some experts believe we’ll first see these devices in the shipping industry, where large vessels can accommodate heavier and bulkier equipment. 

Eventually, next-generation quantum sensors, optical clocks, and magnetic navigation devices might become small enough to slip into an aircraft’s avionics bay or even a smartphone. That, however, is still a long way off.


 







AAR signs exclusive PW4000 agreement with Chromalloy
•	March 5, 2025
•	9:29 am
•	MRO & Production

AAR CORP., a provider of aviation services to commercial and government operators, MROs, and OEMs, has signed an exclusive distribution and license agreement for parts manufacturer approval (PMA) high-pressure turbine blades for PW4000 engine platforms, manufactured by Chromalloy's subsidiary, BELAC LLC.

The multi-year agreement guarantees stock levels for the sought-after T1 blade, ensuring reliable supply for this high-value engine platform. This partnership complements an existing AAR agreement to distribute BELAC's T1 and T2 turbine blades for the CF6-80C2 engine platform.

BELAC's turbine blades are designed for enhanced durability, offering downstream cost savings for operators. “BELAC products are engineered to provide enhanced durability and deliver downstream cost savings. By collaborating with AAR, we are able to offer additional engine material options and enhance supply chain reliability for the global aviation market,” said Mike Zerbe, General Manager of BELAC.

Sal Marino, AAR's Senior Vice President of Parts Supply, emphasised the importance of this collaboration in meeting customer needs. “AAR is focused on delivering cost-saving solutions to our global customer base. We are pleased to expand AAR's engine portfolio and support the continued growth of our product offerings through this relationship with Chromalloy.”

The agreement strengthens AAR's position as a trusted distributor of high-quality engine components, supporting global aviation supply chain reliability while offering cost-effective solutions to operators worldwide.


 







Inside the mile-long factory line where America's F-35 stealth fighter jets are made

Jake Epstein
Updated February 19, 2025 at 3:03 AM

Note: See photos in the original article. 

Three US Air Force F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters.US Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Madelyn Brown

•	Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II is one of the world's most advanced fighter jets.
•	Business Insider toured a facility where the stealth jet is made.
•	The production line in Fort Worth, Texas, is cranking out over 150 aircraft a year.

In a sprawling factory in Texas, thousands of people work around the clock to assemble the US military's most advanced multirole fighter jet: the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

The facility, operated by the defense giant Lockheed Martin, stretches more than 1 mile and cranks out over 150 aircraft a year. It's enormous, with people riding golf carts or bikes to travel from one end to the other.

Business Insider recently toured the factory, officially called Air Force Plant 4. An overhead view of the production line, looking from right to left, reveals the tremendous scale of the operation. F-35s can be seen going from just the bare bones — chunks of metal largely unrecognizable to the untrained eye — to a jet that's nearly in its final form: a single-engine supersonic stealth fighter jet made to dominate various combat operations.
The F-35 is the world's most expensive weapons program, with an expected lifetime cost of more than $2 trillion. Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency's head, and others have sharply criticized the aircraft amid rising program costs, sustainability challenges, and developmental setbacks. But it's constantly being upgraded and widely recognized as a top fifth-generation fighter.

Lockheed says the jet's production contributes roughly $72 billion annually to the US economy through its network of suppliers and hundreds of thousands of workers across the country.
It takes about 1 ½ years to build an F-35
Air Force Plant 4 has been making warplanes for decades. It began producing bomber aircraft during World War II before transitioning to the now retired F-111 Aardvark in the 1960s. Several years later, it started building F-16s.

A view of the F-35 production line in Fort Worth, Texas.Courtesy of Lockheed Martin
The first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter rolled off the factory floor in 2006, and since then, more than 1,110 of these fighter jets have been delivered to the US and its allies.

After significant delays, the F-35 program last year achieved full-rate production.
Air Force Plant 4 has fighter aircraft in various stages of production, with 156 planes coming off the assembly line annually from across all three variants — the A, B, and C variants are designed for conventional and ship-based take-off and landing.

A single F-35 takes around 18 months to build, and the work to build these aircraft is a 24-hour-a-day operation, with thousands of workers moving in and out of the plant on any given day, surrounded by heavy machinery.

Another view of the F-35 production facility.Courtesy of Lockheed Martin
Building the fighter jet starts with the assembly of its wing section. Construction of the airframe then moves down the production line to an area where the four major structure pieces of the jet — the tail section, wings, center fuselage, and forward fuselage — are brought together.

Maintaining a steady parts supply is a big challenge
This is where the aircraft really starts to take its highly recognizable shape. Small screens next to the aircraft show which country it's being made for: the US, the UK, Poland, Israel, or Japan, to name a few.

Another angle of the F-35 production line.Courtesy of Lockheed Martin
Parts for the F-35 — of which there are thousands — come from all over the world because the jet is a multinational project. One of the biggest challenges with building the fighter, BI learned, is ensuring that an adequate supply of parts is flowing to the Fort Worth production site.

When the fighters reach the end of the production line, they're ready to be painted their signature gray color. The paint, according to Lockheed, is designed to reduce and absorb radar signals, which contributes to the aircraft's stealth profile.

The painting process is done in a separate building, which is equipped with hangers that can close off during the coloring. Some automation is involved in the construction of an F-35 jet, including during the creation of its wing structure and the painting stage.

A completed US Air Force F-35 during an air show in February 2023.AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi
Each aircraft is then flown several times as part of testing before it's ready to be sold.
The largest F-35 final assembly facility is in Fort Worth, but there's a smaller plant in Italy and another in Japan. These sites underline the global nature of the operation, as planes are shipped off to militaries in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

The F-35 has been used in combat since its first flight nearly 20 years ago. The US military has flown all three variants in strike missions against terror groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The jet also received significant praise after Israel used it this past fall to carry out widespread airstrikes in Iran.


 



Curt Lewis