#Airspeed Group of Companies

[digitalfilipina]

LRMC, Airspeed to pilot first smart locker system in public transport

LRT-1 private operator Light Rail Manila Corporation (LRMC) has officially inked a deal with the Airspeed Group of Companies to activate PopBox in the Philippines and enable the first smart locker system available in a public transport terminal. Present during the partnership signing were (L-R) LRMC Head of Business Development John Kelly F. Tan, LRMC President and CEO Juan F. Alfonso together…

[that-demigirl]

Born To Die - Chapter 4

Chapter Summary: The training course starts and a big fight breaks out among the detachment

A/N: I hope y'all enjoy the chapter. Any and all feedback is appreciated.

Everyone was just getting in for the day when Allison’s attention was drawn to Jake and Javy. They were looking at one of the pictures in the room and curiosity got the best of her. Erin wasn’t there yet to keep her company and as mad as she was a t Jake, Javy was still her friend.

“What are you boys looking at?” Allison approached them and leaned down to look at the picture.

“It’s Maverick’s Top Gun class,” Javy pointed out. Jake stayed uncharacteristically quiet, “But look who’s standing next to him.”

Allison’s eyes were drawn to a man who looked very familiar. Upon closer inspection she realized it was Bradley’s dad. Erin had told her the very surface details of what happened with the mission that took Bradley’s dad away one night. Allison sent a worried look over to Javy and Jake, hoping that maybe they would let this one go and not bring it up.

“Let’s leave the dead to rest, please,” Allison asked softly before walking away from the boys. She didn’t even look back, but if she did she would’ve seen Jake’s eyes following her across the room. She looked to the entrance of the room to see Bradley and Erin walking in and conversing as if nothing was wrong. Allison would be lying if she said she wasn’t surprised by it.

“Allie!” Erin smiled, “You left early this morning, I didn’t even hear you get up.”

“Yeah, I just needed to get a run in before work,” Allison responded.

“Good morning, Medusa,” Bradley greeted, not even a bit uneasy around either Erin or Allison for once.

“Rooster,” Allison nodded her head to him. She would accept a… temporary truce, for now. She still didn’t trust him, especially not around Erin, but if the two were on speaking terms then Allison wouldn’t interfere with that.

—

“Time is your greatest enemy,” Pete explained to the group of pilots, all sitting in a classroom-like setting. Allison and Erin sat right behind Javy and Jake and just to the right of Bradley, “Phase one of the mission will be a low-level ingress attacking two plane teams. You’ll fly along this narrow canyon to your target. Radar guided surface-to-air missiles defend the area. These SAMs, they’re lethal, but they were designed to protect the skies above, not the canyon below.”

“That’s because the enemy knows no one is insane enough to try and fly below them,” Bradley spoke up. Erin glanced over to him before looking back at their mission brief. An uneasy feeling settled in her stomach as she realized there was a good chance someone wasn’t making it back from this mission. 

“That’s exactly what I’m gonna train you to do,” Pete responded to Bradley, his face devoid of any of his usual humor or wit. Erin had rarely seen him so serious, not in her years of knowing him as a kind of surrogate uncle. The only time she could remember was when her actual uncle had gotten cancer and broke the news to everyone over dinner. Erin didn’t think she’d ever forget that night.

“On the day, your altitude will be 100 feet maximum,” Pete continued to explain, “You exceed this altitude, radar will spot you and you’re dead. Your airspeed will be 660 knots minimum. Time to target, two and a half minutes. That’s because fifth-generation fighters wait at an air base nearby.”

As Pete continued to brief the pilots, Erin glanced over to Allison. The two women made eye contact with worry showing in both of their eyes. This wasn’t just any mission, this was a suicide mission. Erin could see her earlier conclusion reaching Allison as well. Somebody wasn’t making it back home this time.

Pete set up what the exercise of the day would be. They would lighten the parameters to start, but the exercise wouldn’t be easy. As everyone filtered out of the classroom to get ready all Erin could feel was a sense of worry and dread. She knew that out of all the two-seaters in their group, her and Allison were one of the best. They had proven that time and time again, but she didn’t think even their best would be enough for this mission.

—

The first run was Javy with Natasha and Robert. Allison had sat on the edge of her seat the entire time, watching the icons on the screen and listening to the radio chatter. A visible wince crossed her face as she watched Javy suddenly slow down and Natasha be forced above the ceiling parameter for the exercise. The three looked defeated as they came into the classroom to debrief their run.

“Why are they dead?” Pete asked Javy.

“We broke the 300 foot ceiling and a SAM took us out,” Natasha answered instead. Allison glanced over to Javy as an even deeper look of defeat crossed his face.

“No, why are they dead?” Pete dismissed Natasha and looked directly at Javy.

“I slowed down and didn’t give her a warning, it was my fault,” Javy responded.

“Was there a reason you didn’t communicate with your team?” Pete pressed.

“I was focusing on-” Javy began to respond.

“One that their family will accept at the funeral?” Pete cut him off with a grave facial expression. Allison couldn’t help the protective instinct welling up in her. It was just an exercise and he was doing the best he could. As if sensing her thought process, Erin laid a gentle hand on her arm as if to calm her.

“None, sir,” Javy responded.

“Why didn’t you anticipate the turn?” Pete turned to Natasha, “You were briefed on the terrain. Don’t tell me, tell it to his family.”

Natasha looked just as defeated as Javy as she glanced over to Robert. Allison looked at Erin, wondering just what she would say to Erin’s family if she ever lost her and it was her fault. How would she explain that to a family that barely wanted Erin to fly in the first place?

—

The next to go were Jake with Reuben and Mickey. If how he flew with Erin and Allison the day before was anything to go by, Erin did not have a good feeling about this run. He wasn’t listening to Reuben and leaving him in the dust. She could hear Reuben get both increasingly frustrated with him and fearful at the same time. 

“What happened?” Pete asked Jake once the three had returned from their run.

“I flew as fast as I could,” Jake responded, “Kind of like my ass depended on it.”

“And you put your team in danger, and your wingman’s dead,” Bradley called him out. Erin and Allison both looked to be agreeing with Bradley as they turned their eyes back to Jake.

“They couldn’t keep up,” was all that came from Jake.

“Maybe if you would’ve listened to your team, this wouldn’t be a problem,” Erin heard Allison mutter next to her. Erin thought she might be seeing something, but it almost looked like Jake tensed after hearing Allison. She must be delusional though cause nothing ever phased Jake.

—

Then it came to Bradley with Allison and Erin. For the most part the course itself was going well except for the fact they were behind schedule by a large margin. Or at least a large margin when it came to the standards of flying fighter jets.

“Rooster, we’re 20 seconds behind and only getting slower,” Allison called out as they flew the course.

“We’re fine, speed is good,” Bradley dismissed her worry. Allison did not like that response, especially as she watched the timer keep counting down.

“Increase to 500 knots,” Allison tried to direct him.

“Negative, Medusa, hold your speed,” Bradley refused.

“Rooster, we’re way behind schedule,” Allison again tried to reason with him. She knew Bradley was a careful flier, someone who didn’t want to do anything reckless or endanger anyone. Allison just wished he saw it was just as dangerous to go slow.

“We’re alive,” Bradley countered, “We can make up time in the straightaway.”

“We aren’t going to make it, Rooster,” Allison sounded even more frustrated. Erin felt helpless in the backseat, listening to both of them argue with each other.

“Just trust me,” Bradley responded, “Maintain your speed, we can make it.”

And then they didn’t make it, at least not in time. They all went back up to the classroom to debrief their own run. If Erin hadn’t been there, Allison might’ve picked a fight with Bradley about the run. Fortunately for him, Erin was there and Allison had already shown one emotional outburst in front of her. No need for another one.

“Why are you dead?” Pete asked Bradley directly, “You’re team leader up there. Why are you, why is your team dead?”

“Because he doesn’t know how to listen to his team,” Allison commented.

“Yet you’re the only ones who made it to the target,” Natasha defended Bradley.

“A minute late,” Pete countered, “He gave enemy aircraft time to shoot him down. He is dead.”

“We don’t know that,” Erin spoke up, also coming to Bradley’s defense. Pete looked almost shocked at her speaking up. 

“He’s not flying fast enough, you don’t have a second to waste,” came Jake’s overconfident voice from the front of the class.

“We made it to the target,” Bradley finally spoke up, countering Jake.

“And superior enemy aircraft intercepted you on your way out,” Pete said.

“Then it’s a dogfight,” Bradley responded.

“Against fifth-generation fighters?” Pete questioned him.

“Yeah, we’d still have a chance,” Bradley argued.

“In an F-18,” Pete began to raise his voice. Erin felt like she was watching her high school years all over again. Seeing Bradley and Pete at each other’s throats. Allison couldn’t honestly believe the amount of insubordination coming from Bradley.

“It’s not the plane, sir, it’s the pilot,” Bradley said.

“Exactly!” Pete yelled, staring him dead on. There was a moment of tense silence as the two reached a stand off.

“There’s more than one way to fly this mission,” Bradley finally said.

“You really don’t get it,” Jake said as Allison braced herself for the impending fight, “On this mission, a man flies like Maverick here, or a man does not come back. No offense intended.”

“Yet somehow you always manage,” Robert said as Jake aimed his last comment at Natasha. Erin had a hard time stifling the chuckle at Robert actually putting Jake in his place, knowing it was neither the time nor the place for it.

“Look, I don’t mean to criticize. You’re conservative that’s all,” Jake continued and all Allison could think was ‘why isn’t Maverick stopping this?’.

“Lieutenant,” Pete spoke up, a weak attempt to put an end to Jake’s tirade.

“We’re going into combat, son, on a level no living pilot’s ever seen,” Jake just pressed on, ignoring their instructor.

“Hangman,” Allison warned, also seeing where this was going.

“Not even him,” Jake ignored her as well, “That’s no time to be thinking about the past.”

‘What’s that supposed to mean?” Bradley turned to Jake, anger written all over his face.

“Rooster…” “Bradley…” Both Pete and Erin spoke up at the same time.

“I can’t be the only one that knows that Maverick flew with his old man,” Jake leaned back in his seat and continued to speak.

“Jake, stop,” Allison all but begged him.

“That’s enough,” Pete harshly turned to Jake.

“Or that Maverick was flying when his old man-” Jake got cut off at Bradley leaped at him, ready to throw a punch. It all happened so fast. Javy went to protect Jake. Erin went to stand in front of Bradley, though she was facing him as if to calm him down. Allison went to hold Jake back from starting anymore shit. Pete lept in between the two pilots, trying to get everyone to knock it off.

“You son of a bitch,” Bradley yelled at Jake as Erin began pushing him back and Robert helped her hold him off.

“Hey man,” Javy continued to protect Jake while also holding him back with Allison.

“I’m cool, I’m cool,” Jake shook both of them off. Allison couldn’t believe the amount of bs she just heard from him.

“That’s enough,” Pete cut in, tone harsh and firm.

“He’s not cut out for this mission,” Jake said, staring directly at Bradley. 

“Jake, shut up,” Allison glared at the much taller man.

“You know I’m right,” Jake said to Pete as he walked out, intentionally walking by Bradley who was still being held back by Erin, Robert, Natasha, and Reuben.

“You’re all dismissed,” Pete said, looking around at all the pilots. Allison ran after Jake before Javy could while Erin pulled Bradley out of the classroom from a different exit. The rest of the pilots went their separate ways.

Tag list: @djs8891

[goldiers1]

Rise of the Ticket Agent: Airspeed's Rosemarie Rafael

  Life sometimes has a way of telling you to switch lanes, whether in everyday situations or a career-alternating path altogether. This is something that Ms. Rosemarie Rafael, chairperson of logistics company Airspeed, a part of SM Investments Corporation’s portfolio investments, has learned over her 40-plus years of experience. She fondly looks back on her early years as a passenger ticketing and reservations agent for an airline company. As dedicated as she was to that role, she also recalls facing many challenges along the way. For instance, there was that one time she went back to her desk in tears after being locked out from a meeting she was late to by ten minutes. Her phone call with a client for the company ran a bit longer than expected, and she found herself ‘not needed’ anymore in the meeting.  

Ms. Rosemarie Rafael at Airspeed. Photo by SM Investments Corporation.   It’s as if spontaneously, the future founder of logistics company Airspeed will soon have one foot at the door into an industry she will lead one day when a phone call from a freight company presented an opportunity—she took it. Years later, she rose through the ranks. Venturing beyond her comfort zone, Ms. Rafael felt right to set out on her own—but not without being at a crossroads once more. The Airspeed story was set when she consulted her then-boss about her idea, the fact of leaving the currently recognized number-one company by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) came to mind.   “Why be a small fish in a big pond?” her boss remarked. The answer to this was clear to Ms. Rafael, who said, “because it has so much room for growth.” Within five years of her company’s founding, Airspeed eventually claimed the number one spot in the IATA ranking. Ms. Rafael attributes this success to the relationships she built with her clients during the early stages that helped Airspeed thrive in the industry.  

MNG Cargo Airlines Airbus A300B4-203F. Photo by Aero Icarus. Flickr.   From a meek startup with six employees and a single delivery van, the company now has over a thousand skilled personnel and a fleet of vehicles that can be swiftly mobilized at more than 300-strong. Among of Ms. Rafael’s notable achievements is paving the way for women. Not only is she leading a successful business, but she has also established a formidable company in an industry that is commonly associated with the male demographic. The proud mother of four has been defying the odds. She also notes the distinct group of people that sets Airspeed apart from other logistics providers. For one, key decisions in the company are being made by empowered women. This is evident in female leaders making up 70% of Airspeed’s top executives and 45% of their middle-tier managers. Ms. Rafael has empowered them to lead a company that highlights solutions-based decisions to drive further progress and innovation.  

Sky Express Cargo plane. Photo by Eric Salard. Wikimedia.   She discusses how the empowerment of women in the company allows their innate vision and nurturing qualities to permeate throughout the company transcending the work done in Airspeed as it crosses to a personal level of trust.   “Airspeed is known for the kind of people we have. We are a company of integrity and this is not to be compromised even in the hardest times,” Ms. Rafael said. “We prioritize our people and stakeholders. We believe that if we have happy people working for us, then we will have happy and satisfied customers.” Ms. Rafael’s journey tells a story of vision, commitment, and persistence. Her first few jobs may not have been the best fit for her, but she was composed and did everything to the best of her abilities. When it was clear she wanted to change, she followed through with her dream, all the lessons in tow, and established her company Airspeed.   Sources: THX News & SM Investments Corp. Read the full article

[justinblogcmu]

"I was there Gandalf..."

Week 2 - Blog Post #1 (Video and Article)

The article I found interesting because though I grew up with technology, my generation (or at least 90s babies) remember a time when not everyone had cell phones and internet access in their homes. I remember the “Before the Internet” times! But we grew up as technology exploded into what we have today. Granted, I used floppy disks when I was a kid, I remember being yelled at by my siblings when I didn’t rewind the tape, I remember when Netflix first started sending us movies in the mail, I remember how myspace was in and Facebook was for old people. I grew up when these trends ebbed and flowed so fast that it seemed hard to keep up. There was a time when I finally had technology in high school and finally was connected to my friends through apps and texting. Always being available was super fun and cool but it did start to turn into an addiction, I needed to be connected. I needed to watch my friends update their lives and be involved (even though all I was doing was commenting on posts). It became an unfortunate habit that affected my mentality greatly because I was not able to be there in person, just watching from the outside and being sad that it wasn’t me. In 2016, at 22 years old, I finally broke my addiction and deleted Facebook, deleted Twitter, and decided to disconnect from that. Now, I still use my phone for apps and things; I still have Snapchat, I peruse way too much on Reddit, and plenty of instant gratification games. But my intake of social media is down significantly over the past six years. I enjoy having the ease and convenience of the advanced technology I always have in my pocket.

Max Stossel’s talk about technology had me engaged from the very beginning. He made excellent points about how literally all our activity, data, trends, habits, and more are recorded and then turned around and used against us. There is a whole market dedicated to making us crave our phones and the apps that populate them. As I said before, I grew up with the explosion of technology but remember a time when it was not as prevalent as it is now. Kids after me have always had this connectivity and they are the target of these tech companies. As Max said, “We are pigging out on these digital marshmallows… we are switching attention to these screens 27 times per hour.” It is so readily available and so easy to “eat the marshmallow” and then receive 26 more instantly right after. Having this technology is such a blessing, to be able to have the information of the entire world and history available instantly. Seriously, I just googled “History of Japan” on google and got “About 1,920,000,000 results (0.67 seconds)”. But Max gave some good advice on how to remove that stress from your life though, to remove your phone from the room when doing homework, turn off any notifications that are not from a human being, or even just try not to use social media for a week. Phones should not be an extension of ourselves but a resource we use when it is necessary, not just because.

What was it like to not have internet for an extended amount of time? Going camping on South Manitou Island, as a group, we decided that no phones were the way to go and just have a good time together. This was this weird mixed feeling of it’s nice to just sit back and enjoy things but on the other hand, I could feel that itch in the back of my head that said “Got any texts? I wonder what that plant is? What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?” and this incessant need to acquire information instantly. I could have brought a Northern Michigan plant book to identify the plants but who has the time to do that?? As I get older it is less of a big deal to not have internet, but I still feel the itch to scroll or watch silly videos or whatever.

[usafphantom2]

Stuart Banham Follow

Gloster Meteor F.Mk.8 (WK654) Jet Fighter, City of Norwich Aviation Museum.

This aircraft is painted the colours of 245 Squadron based at RAF Horsham St Faith. The museum acquired the aeroplane from RAF Neatishead were it was displayed at a 'gate guard' for many years. Much of the repainting was carried out by painters from RAF Coltishall in the summer of 2005.

The RAF's main Fighter from 1950 to 1955, was the Gloster Meteor, this was Britain's first Jet Fighter, the Mk.I's were the only Allied Jet Aircraft to see operational service during World War Two, they equipped No.1 Squadron which went into action in 1944 against the German V1 Flying Bombs fired against Great Britain. The Squadron had some success but found the Meteor could not accelerate as quickly as the RAF's latest large piston engined Fighters !

Improved versions of the Meteor followed in the Post War years, the Meteor F8 entered RAF service in 1950 replacing the earlier F4's as the 'mainstay' of Fighter Command’s Home Defence Squadrons.

The Gloster Meteor was the first British Jet fighter and the Allies' only Jet Aircraft to achieve Combat Operations during World War Two. The Meteor's development was heavily reliant on its ground-breaking 'Turbojet Engines' pioneered by Frank Whittle and his company ''Power Jets Ltd''. Development of the Aircraft began in 1940, although work on the Engines had been under way since 1936. The Meteor first flew in 1943 and commenced operations on 27th July 1944 with No.616 Squadron RAF. The type was not a sophisticated Aircraft in its aerodynamics, but proved to be a successful Combat Fighter. Gloster's 1946 civil Meteor F.4 demonstrator G-AIDC was the first civilian-registered Jet Aircraft in the world. Several major variants of the Meteor incorporated technological advances during the 1940's and 1950's. Thousands of Meteors were built to fly with the RAF and other Air Forces and remained in use for several decades.

Gloster Meteors of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) fought in the Korean War, several other operators such as Argentina, Egypt and Israel flew Meteor's in later regional conflicts. Specialised variants of the Meteor were developed for use in Photographic Aerial Reconnaissance and as Night Fighters. The Meteor was also used for research and development purposes and to break several aviation records and on 7th November 1945, the first official airspeed record by a Jet Aircraft was set by a Meteor F.3 at 606mph. In 1946, this record was broken when a Meteor F.4 reached a speed of 616mph. Other performance related records were broken in categories including flight time endurance, rate of climb, and speed. On 20th September 1945, a heavily modified Meteor Mk.I powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent Turbine Engines driving propellers, became the first turboprop aircraft to fly. On 10th February 1954, a specially adapted Meteor F.8, the ''Meteor Prone Pilot'' which placed the Pilot into a prone position to counteract inertial forces, took its first flight.

In the 1950's, the Meteor became increasingly obsolete as more nations introduced Jet Fighters, many of these newcomers having adopted a swept wing instead of the Meteor's conventional straight wing, in RAF service, the Meteor was replaced by newer types such as the Hawker Hunter and Gloster Javelin. As of 2018, two Meteors, G-JSMA and G-JWMA, remain in active service with the Martin-Baker Company as 'Ejection Seat Testbeds'. One further Aircraft in the UK remains airworthy, as does another in Australia.

Late in 1945, two F.3 Meteors were modified for an attempt on the world air speed record, on 7th November 1945 at Herne Bay in Kent, Group Captain Hugh ''Willie'' Wilson set the first official air speed record by a Jet Aircraft of 606mph TAS (True Airspeed) In 1946, Group Captain Edward ''Teddy'' Donaldson broke this record with a speed of 616mph TAS, in EE549, a Meteor F.4.

▪︎Role: Fighter Aircraft

▪︎National Origin: United Kingdom

▪︎Manufacturer: Gloster Aircraft Company

▪︎First Flight: 5th March 1943

▪︎Introduction: 27th July 1944

▪︎Retired: 1980s (RAF Target Tugs)

▪︎Status: Two in use as Testbed Aircraft (one with civil registration)

▪︎Primary Users: Royal Air Force / Royal Australian Air Force / Belgian Air Force / Argentine Air Force

▪︎Power Plant: Rolls-Royce RB.50 Trent

▪︎Produced: 1943 to 1955

▪︎Number Built: 3,947.

Via Flickr

[bam-amor]

Airspeed’s 3PL Services Build up Businesses, Communities and Lives

Airspeed’s 3PL Services Build up Businesses, Communities and Lives

Approaching the logistics industry with an aptitude for success, Airspeed is differentiated as the local player whose reliable and trustworthy service builds up businesses, communities and lives.

(more…)

[andrew-auston]

Rolls-Royce Heads To Net Zero After Covid Turbulence.

British Jet Engines Group Seeks Greener Fuel and Battery Power Following Collapse of Long-Haul Air Travel.

On a bright September afternoon, a small silver and blue plane took off from Boscombe Down, the military airfield near Stonehenge that has been the scene of many famous maiden flights.

This was no exception: The single-seater ran on electric power and had the hopes of its developer, Rolls-Royce, of finally bringing a battery-powered aircraft to market.

With 6,000 battery cells and three motors delivering more than 500 horsepower, Spirit of Innovation (pictured above) will soon be aiming for a world air speed record for electric aircraft. But it's not just about chasing records; The aircraft is the most striking example of the FTSE 100 company's focus on developing technological advancements that could transform commercial aviation.

The show has echoes of one of the company's most celebrated episodes, when Rolls-Royce developed the Type R engine. It powered airspeed racers in the 1930s and was the precursor to the Merlin engine used in the Spitfire fighter jet during World War II.

[kawaiiprincessme]

Airspeed Christmas Services 2022

Airspeed Christmas Services 2022

’Tis the season to be merry!   We’re down to the last two months of 2022, and it has been a colorful year for the Airspeed Group of Companies and there’s so many things to be grateful and to be ecstatic for before welcoming the new year.   Starting from Airspeed’s unstoppable innovation and its vision to grow despite the challenge during the pandemic. The company strived and was considered as one…

[wiseedition]

Final minutes of Air France flight AF447 to be examined as trial opens

The harrowing final minutes of the Air France flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris that went into freefall and plunged into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009, killing all 228 people on board, will be examined as a landmark trial opens in Paris on Monday.

Two aviation industry heavyweights – the airline Air France, and the aircraft maker Airbus – are being tried on charges of involuntary manslaughter for what was the worst plane crash in the French airline’s history.

It is the first time French companies have been directly placed on trial after an air crash, rather than individuals, and families’ lawyers battled for years to bring the case to court.

The crash on 1 June 2009 shook the world of air travel when flight AF447 disappeared from radars as it crossed the night sky during a storm over the Atlantic between Brazil and Senegal. The Airbus A330 had vanished without a mayday sign.

Days later, debris was found in the ocean, but it took nearly two years to locate the bulk of the fuselage and recover the “black box” flight recorders. The unprecedented French search effort involved combing 17,000 sq km of ocean bed at depths of up to 4,000 metres for over 22 months.

The plane had been carrying 12 crew members and 216 passengers from 33 different nationalities, all of whom were killed.

Planes most often crash on land and the AF447 ocean crash came to be seen as one of a handful of accidents that changed aviation. It led to changes in safety regulations, pilot training and the use of airspeed sensors.

The trial will hear extensive detail from the final, fatal minutes in the cockpit as the confused captain and co-pilots fought to control the plane.

As the plane approached the equator on its way to Paris, it had entered a so-called “intertropical convergence zone” that often produces volatile storms with heavy precipitation. As a storm buffeted the plane, ice crystals present at high altitudes had disabled the plane’s airspeed sensors, blocking speed and altitude information. The automatic pilot functions stopped working.

The 205-tonne jet went into an aerodynamic stall and then plunged.

“We’ve lost our speeds,” one co-pilot is heard saying in the flight recordings, before other indicators mistakenly show a loss of altitude, and a series of alarm messages appear on the cockpit screens. “I don’t know what’s happening,” one of the pilots says.

The historic trial will consider the role of the airspeed sensors and the pilots.

Daniele Lamy, president of the victims’ group, Entraide et Solidarité, told AFP: “We expect an impartial and exemplary trial so that this never happens again, and that as a result the two defendants will make safety their priority instead of only profitability.”

Air France and Airbus face potential fines of up to €225,000 – a fraction of their annual revenues – but they could suffer damage to their reputations if found criminally responsible.

Both companies have denied any criminal negligence, and investigating magistrates overseeing the case dropped the charges in 2019, attributing the crash mainly to pilot error.

That decision infuriated victims’ families, and in 2021 a Paris appeals court ruled there was sufficient evidence to allow a trial to go ahead.

“Air France … will continue to demonstrate that it did not commit any criminal negligence that caused this accident, and will request an acquittal,” the airline said in a statement to AFP.

Airbus, maker of the A330 jet that had been put into service just four years before the accident, did not comment before the trial but has also denied any criminal negligence.

From Italy to Sweden, Hungary to France, the far right is once again a force to be reckoned with. Its hostility towards immigrants encourages xenophobes everywhere, including in India. Its social conservatism threatens hard-won LGBTQ+ rights. Its euroscepticism has already upset the dynamics of the EU.

The normalisation of far right rhetoric has gone far enough. For decades, Guardian journalism has challenged populists like this, and the divisions that they sow. Fiercely independent, we are able to confront without holding back because of the interests of shareholders or a billionaire owner. Our journalism is always free from commercial or political influence. Reporting like this is vital for democracy, for fairness and to demand better from the powerful.

And we provide all this for free, for everyone to read. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of the events shaping our world, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action. Millions can benefit from open access to quality, truthful news, regardless of their ability to pay for it.

Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future.

[loadingjunction600]

Best Flight Simulator For Mac Os X

A good flight simulator is the one which have realistic graphics, real maps, best in class airplanes and controls that can simulate a real flying experience. In this article, we are going to list the top free flight simulator that one can use to fly their favorite aircraft with amazingly real graphics. The Covid-19 lockdown around the world can be very tiring for a lot of us, hence we have some amazing free flight simulator for you to try. We have earlier posted an article on fastest aircraft in GeoFS (Geo Flight Simulator) and now we are here with a lot more for you.

In this list we are going to list some flight simulators which come in two categories, ONLINE FLIGHT SIMULATOR and FREE FLIGHT SIMULATOR. We tried our best to research and list only those flight simulators that are good and easily accessible.

What is a flight simulator?

5 Flight Simulator for MAC OS. After How To Use Flight Simulator now here are Top 5 Flight Simulator for MAC OS. The simulators which are given down below are all based on their performance, reviews from gamers and experts. If you know better simulators from this, will be happy to hear from you. Checkout Top 5 Overwatch Mods Minecraft. GeoFS (GEO FLIGHT SIMULATOR) This is the first and best online flight simulator in our list.

A flight simulator is an artificial flight environment where you can recreate a flying experience. Flight simulators are used by companies to train the future pilots and to enhance their flying skills. A flight simulator is not just for fun but is also used to recreate an air crash to know the reasons for it. Air crash investigations are carried out in which they recreate the flight with the provided data to look for various reasons of the crash. In this article, we will only talk about a basic flight simulator which you can use for fun and to fulfill your dreams of flying any aircraft.

Microsoft Flight Simulator X Mac

List of top free flight simulator of 2020

Below we are listing the best flight simulators. You can access all of them for free and they have been tested according to the users needs. We will provide the direct links to access these free flight simulator if they are available.

1. GeoFS (GEO FLIGHT SIMULATOR)

This is the first and best online flight simulator in our list. GeoFS was earlier Google Earth Flight Simulator but later google discontinued it. The GeoFS community was so impressed by the flight simulator that they decided to continue it and it is now owned by Cesium webGL. You can access this flight simulator directly through your web browser anytime and anywhere, GeoFS does not require any files to be downloaded. GeoFS have many features which gives us the best flying experience. There is a huge list of available aircraft that you can fly like the Airbus A380, Boeing 747, Airbus A350 and also the spersonic F16.

Features of GeoFS

Real map- GeoFS has a real map that means you can fly anywhere around the globe and land or takeoff from any airport.

HD graphics- GeoFS have stunning graphics and smooth runways.

Real time weather conditions- The free flight simulator has an amazing feature through which you can experience real time weather of any place and also real time airspeed which makes it even more realistic.

There are a total of 40 aircraft which you can fly in GeoFS. these 40 aircraft include commercial aircraft, supersonic jets, helicopter, hot air balloon and even a glider.

Multiplayer GeoFS is a multiplayer flight simulator which means you can fly with your friends and do a group flight.

Free of cost- GeoFS provides all these features for free and does not charge anything.

Where can I use the GeoFS?

One can use the GeoFS on any web browser and does not need to download any files to your computer. GeoFS is now also available on your Android Mobile devices and iOS. The links are provided below.

web browser link – GeoFS

Android App- GeoFS Android App Avatar the last airbender game download pc.

iOS app- GeoFS iOS app

ALSO CHECK

2. Flight Gear (Windows, MacOS)

Flight Gear is another stunning free flight simulator that is supported on windows and MacOS. This is the advanced level of GeoFS where the controls and graphics are even more realistic and smooth. Flight Gear is owned by Microsoft and was started in 1997. Since then this amazing free flight simulator has been improvised by the developer community. Flight Gear is an open source software which means installation can be a little confusing for some. There is a large variety of aircraft to fly that are community contributed which you will have to install manually. but in case you face a problem configuring these aircraft, you can still fly a Cessna 172 and enjoy the large map of the simulator. Below we will be listing the features of Flight Gear and provide you a few important links.

Features of Flight Gear

free of cost- The main feature is obviously the fact that Flight Gear is totally free of cost, you do not have to buy it from anywhere.

Huge map and tons of airports- Flight Gear offers the pilots a lot of airports that are approximately 20,000 till date. It also has a huge map to fly.

Stunning graphics- Flight Gear have some very realistic graphics, one can adjust the graphics according to there needs, the system requirements are not too high as well.

detailed weather effects.

open source software.

Download FlightGear 2018.3.5 for Windows (versions 7, 8, 10)

Download FlightGear 2018.3.5 for macOS

download additional aircraft here.

Vlc player for mac os x 10 6 8. Download the latest World Scenery data updates.

Visit the FlightGear store.

X-Plane 11 (Windows, MacOS, Linux, Android, iOS)

Laminar Research’s X-Plane 11 is another flight simulator that has a different fan base. Its a free flight simulator and have more than 3000 airports with realistic hangers where you can park your aircraft and terminal buildings. It is not just another flight simulator as it have very real controls and is very detailed. The developers who made it claim that it is not just a simulation game but a lot more than that since it is very realistic. It offers very accurate detailing of the aircraft and the maps, multiplayer option offers you an ATC (Air Traffic Controller) which makes it even more impressive. X-Plane have some serious controls which may be difficult to understand for some, but for those aviation enthusiasts who want a totally real flying experience, X-Plane 11 is just for you.

Best Flight Simulator For Mac Os X 10.13

unfortunately the full version is not free but you can download the demo version and enjoy it, we will provide the link below. Bluestacks 1 root.

Features of X-Plane 11

Microsoft Flight Simulator For Mac Os X

Realistic Graphics

3000 Airports

Realistic Cockpit View

Large Variety of Aircraft

Available on almost every platform.

Free demo version available.

Hope you liked these top free flight simulator that are listed in our article. We suggest you to try each and all of them. Also share your views with us in the comment section below. Minitool partition wizard 12.1 key.

[digitalfilipina]

Airspeed Group wins big at the ASEAN and ASIA CEO Awards 2022

Airspeed Group wins big at the ASEAN and ASIA CEO Awards 2022

Pursuing Excellence has always been integral to the Airspeed Group of Companies’ DNA. With this, several award-giving bodies recognized the Airspeed Group, spearheaded by its founder, Rosemarie P. Rafael, and her executive management team for their exemplary leadership in the ASEAN Awards and Asia CEO Awards 2022. Airspeed Chairwoman Rosemarie R. Rafael was once again awarded as part of the…

[carlosebanegas-blog]

Managing Control Forces.

Managing Control Forces. As airplanes evolved from stick and wire contraptions to awesome supersonic machines, the pilot at the center of it all has not changed. Desirable maximum and minimum levels of pilot stick, yoke, and rudder pedal control forces required to steer and maneuver are much the same, but the engineering solutions that bring these forces about have changed with the times. Desirable Control Force Levels. In 1936 and 1937, NACA research pilots and engineers Melvin N. Gough, A. P. Beard, and William H. McAvoy used an instrumented cockpit to establish maximum force levels for control sticks and wheels. In lateral control the maximums for one hand are 30 pounds applied at a stick grip and 80 pounds applied at the rim of a control wheel. In longitudinal control the maximums are 35 pounds for a stick and 50 pounds for a wheel. Lower forces are desirable and easily attainable with modern artificial feel systems. The Federal Aviation Administration allows higher forces for transport-category airplanes under FAR Part 25. Seventy-five pounds is allowed for temporary application. However, the data compilation for the handbook accompanying MIL-STD-1797, a current military document, shows that a little over 50 percent of male pilots and fewer than 5 percent of female pilots are capable of this force level. Gough-Beard-McAvoy force levels are generally used as maximum limits for conventional stick, yoke, and rudder pedal controllers, but much lower control force levels are specified for artificial-feel systems and for side-stick controls operated by wrist and forearm motions. Background to Aerodynamically Balanced Control Surfaces. When airplanes and their control surfaces became large and airplane speeds rose to several hundred miles per hour, control forces grew to the point where even the Gough Beard-McAvoy force limits were exceeded. Pilots needed assistance to move control surfaces to their full travels against the pressure of the air moving past the surfaces. An obvious expedient was to use those same pressures on extensions of the control surface forward of the hinges, to balance the pressure forces that tried to keep the control surfaces faired with the wing. The actual developmental history of aerodynamically balanced control surfaces did not proceed in a logical manner. But a logical first step would have been to establish a background for design of the balances by developing design charts for the forces and hinge moments for unbalanced control surfaces. That step took place first in Great Britain. Glauert’s calculations were based on thin airfoil theory. W. G. Perrin followed in the next year with the theoretical basis for control tab design. The next significant step in the background for forces and hinge moments for unbalanced control surfaces was NACA pressure distribution tests on a NACA 0009 airfoil, an airfoil particularly suited to tail surfaces. The trends with control surface hinge position along the airfoil chord match Glauert’s thin airfoil theory exactly, but with lower flap effectiveness and hinge moment than the theoretical values. Ames and his associates developed a fairly complex scheme to derive three-dimensional wing and tail surface data from the two-dimensional design charts. That NACA work was complemented for horizontal tails by a collection of actual horizontal tail data for 17 tail surfaces, 8 Russian and 3 each Polish, British, and U.S. Full control surface design charts came later, with the publication of stability and control handbooks in several countries. Horn Balances. The first aerodynamic balances to have been used were horn balances, in which area ahead of the hinge line is used only at the control surface tips. In fact, rudder horn balances appear in photos of the Moisant and Bleriot XI monoplanes of the year 1910. It is doubtful that the Moisant and Bl´eriot horn balances were meant to reduce control forces on those tiny, slow airplanes. However, the rudder and aileron horn balances of the large Curtiss F-5L flying boat of 1918 almost certainly had that purpose. Wind-tunnel measurements of the hinge moment reductions provided by horn balances show an interesting characteristic. Control surface hinge moments arise from two sources: control deflection with respect to the fixed surface and angle of attack of the fixed or main surface. The relationship is given in linearized dimensionless form by the equation hinge moment coefficient equals to the derivative of the hinge moment coefficient with respect to the control surface deflection times control surface deflection with respect to the fixed surface plus the derivative of the hinge moment coefficient with respect to angle of attack of the fixed or main surface times the angle of attack of the fixed or main surface, where the hinge moment coefficient is the hinge moment divided by the surface area and mean chord aft of the hinge line and by the dynamic pressure. Both derivatives are normally negative in sign. A negative derivative of the hinge moment coefficient with respect to the control surface deflection means that when deflected the control tends to return to the faired position. A negative derivative of the hinge moment coefficient with respect to angle of attack of the fixed or main surface means that when the fixed surface takes a positive angle of attack the control floats upward, or trailing edge high. Upfloating control surfaces reduce the stabilizing effect of the tail surfaces. It was discovered that horn balances produce positive changes in the derivative of the hinge moment coefficient with respect to angle of attack of the fixed or main surface, reducing the up floating tendency and increasing stability with the pilot’s controls free and the control surfaces free to float. This horn balance advantage has to be weighed against two disadvantages. The aerodynamic balancing moments applied at control surface tips twist the control surface. Likewise, flutter balance weights placed at the tips of the horn, where they have a good moment arm with respect to the hinge line, lose effectiveness with control surface twist. A horn balance variation is the shielded horn balance, in which the horn leading edge is set behind the fixed structure of a wing or tail surface. Shielded horn balances are thought to be less susceptible to accumulating leading-edge ice. Shielded horn balances are also thought to be less susceptible to snagging a pilot’s parachute lines during bailout. Overhang or Leading-Edge Balances. When control surface area ahead of the hinge line is distributed along the span of the control surface, instead of in a horn at the tip, the balance is called an overhang or a leading-edge balance. Overhang design parameters are the percentage of area ahead of the hinge line relative to the total control surface area and the cross-sectional shape of the overhang. Experimental data on the effects of overhang balances on hinge moments and control effectiveness started to be collected as far back as the late 1920s. Some of these early data are given by Abe Silverstein and S. Katzoff. Airplane manufacturers made their own correlations of the effects of overhang balances, notably at the Douglas Aircraft Company. As in many other disciplines, the pressure of World War II accelerated these developments. Root and his group at Douglas found optimized overhang balance proportions for the SBD-1 Dauntless dive bomber by providing for adjustments on hinge line location and overhang nose shape on the SBD-1 prototype, known as the XBT-2. Root wrote a NACA Advance Confidential Report in May 1942 to document a long series of control surface and other modifications leading to flying qualities that satisfied Navy test pilots. For example, in 1 of 12 horizontal tail modifications that were flight tested, the elevator overhang was changed from an elliptical to a “radial,” or more blunt, cross-section, to provide more aerodynamic balancing for small elevator movements. This was to reduce control forces at high airspeeds. Overhang aerodynamic balance, in combination with spring tabs, continue in use in Douglas transport airplanes, from the DC-6 and DC-7 series right up to the elevators and ailerons of the jet-powered DC-8. The DC-8’s elevator is balanced by a 35-percent elliptical nose overhang balance. Remarkably constant hinge moment coefficient variations with elevator deflection are obtained up to a Mach number of 0.96. George S. Schairer came to the Boeing Company with an extensive control surface development background at Convair and in the Cal Tech GALCIT 10-foot wind tunnel. Although early B-17s had used spring tabs, Schairer decided to switch to leading-edge balances for the B-17E and the B-29 bombers. The rounded nose overhang balances on the B-29s worked generally well, except for an elevator overbalance tendency at large deflection angles. Large elevator angles were used in push-overs into dives for evasive action. William Cook remarks, “A World War II B-29 pilot friend of mine was quite familiar with this characteristic, so the fact that he got back meant this must have been tolerable.” However, overhang balance was not effective for the B-29 ailerons. Forces were excessive. The wartime and other work on overhang aerodynamic balance was summarized by the NACA Langley Research Department. The Toll report remains a useful reference for modern stability and control designers working with overhang aerodynamic balances and other aerodynamic balance types as well. Frise Ailerons. The hinge line of the Frise aileron, invented by Leslie George Frise, is always at or below the wing’s lower surface. If one sees aileron hinge brackets below the wing, chances are that one is looking at a Frise aileron. Frise ailerons were used on many historic airplanes after the First World War, including the Boeing XB-15 and B-17, the Bell P-39, the Grumman F6F-3 and TBF, and the famous World War II opponents – the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Focke-Wulf 190 fighters. Frise ailerons were applied to both the Curtiss-Wright C-46 Commando and the Douglas C-54 Sky master during World War II, to replace the hydraulic boost systems used in their respective prototypes. With the hinge point below the wing surface, an arc drawn from the hinge point to be tangent to the wing upper surface penetrates the wing lower surface some distance ahead of the hinge line, thus establishing an overhang balance. The gap between the aileron and wing can be made as narrow as desired by describing another arc slightly larger than the first. This in fact is typical of the Frise aileron design. The narrow wing-to-aileron gap reduces air flow from the high-pressure wing under surface to the lower pressure wing upper surface, reducing drag. The Frise aileron is less prone to accumulate ice for that same reason. It was promoted by the U.S. Army Air Corps Handbook for Airplane Designers as an anti-icing aileron. The relatively sharp Frise aileron nose develops high velocities and low static pressures when projecting below the wing lower surface, when the aileron goes trailing-edge up. This generally overbalances the up-going aileron. On the other hand, the overbalanced-up aileron is connected by control cables or pushrods to the down-going aileron on the other side of the wing. The sharp Frise nose on that side is within the wing contour; the down aileron is underbalanced. By connecting the up and down sides through the pilot’s controls the combination is made stable, with lowered control forces relative to ailerons without aerodynamic balance. The sharp nose of the Frise aileron, protruding below the wing’s lower surface for trailing edge-up deflections, has been thought to help reduce adverse yaw when rolling. The trailing edge-up aileron is on the down-going wing in a roll. In adverse yaw, the down-going wing moves forward, while the airplane yaws in a direction opposite to that corresponding to a coordinated turn. Flow separation from the Frise aileron sharp nose is supposed to increase drag on the down-going wing, pulling it back and reducing adverse yaw. This happens to some extent, but for normal wing plan forms with aspect ratios above about 6, adverse yaw is actually dominated by the aerodynamic yawing moment due to rolling, and is little affected by Frise ailerons. Adverse yaw must be overcome by good directional stability complemented by rudder deflection in harmony with aileron deflection. A Frise aileron design used on the Douglas SBD-1 Dauntless. This design was the seventh and final configuration tested in 1939 and 1940. Nose shape, wing-to-aileron gap, hinge line position, and gap seal parameters were all varied. Flight test evidence of Frise aileron oscillations on a Waco XCG-3 glider due to alternate stalling and unstalling of the sharp nose at extreme up-aileron travels. The upper photo shows the bulky roll rate recorder. The lower photo is a rate of roll trace for two abrupt full aileron rolls. Aileron oscillations are shown by the ripples at the peak roll rate values. Frise ailerons turned out to have problems on large airplanes, where there is a long cable run from the control yoke to the ailerons. In the development of the Waco XCG-3 glider in 1942, the sharp nose of its Frise ailerons alternately stalled and unstalled when the ailerons were held in a deflected position. This created severe buffeting. The aileron nose stalled at the largest angle, reducing the balancing hinge moment. Control cable stretch allowed the aileron to start back toward neutral. But as the aileron angle reduced the nose unstalled, the aerodynamic balance returned, and the aileron started back toward full deflection, completing the cycle. The fix for the XCG-3 was to limit up-aileron angles from 30 to 20 degrees and to round off the sharp nose to delay stalling of the nose. Modified Frise ailerons, with noses raised to delay stalling, had been tested in Britain by A. S. Hartshorn and F. B. Bradfield as early as 1934. The advantages of raised-nose Frise ailerons were verified in NACA tests on a Curtiss P-40. Beveled trailing edges were added to the raised-nose Frise ailerons on the P-40, to make up for loss in aerodynamic balance at small deflections. Lateral stick force remained fairly linear and very low up to a total aileron deflection of 48 degrees, giving a remarkably high dimensionless roll rate of 0.138 at 200 miles per hour. Aileron Differential. The larger travel of one aileron relative to the other is called aileron differential. Aileron differential is a method of reducing control forces by taking advantage of hinge moment bias in one direction. At positive wing angles of attack, the hinge moment acting on both ailerons is normally trailing-edge up, and we say the ailerons want to float up. Assume that the up-going aileron is given a larger travel than the down-going aileron for a given control stick or wheel throw. Then, the work done by the trailing-edge-up hinge moment acting on the up-going aileron can be nearly as great as the work the pilot does in moving the down-going aileron against its up-acting hinge moment, and little pilot force is needed to move the combination. The differential appropriate for up-float is more trailing-edge-up angle than down. Typical values are 30 degrees up and 15 degrees down. The floating hinge moment can be augmented, or even reversed, by fixed tabs. Aileron up-float, associated with negative values of the hinge moment derivative, is greatest at high wing angles of attack. Neglecting accelerated flight, high wing angles of attack occur at low airspeeds. Thus, aileron differential has the unfortunate effect of reducing aileron control forces at low airspeeds more than at high airspeeds, where reductions are really needed. In addition to the force-lightening characteristic of aileron differential, increased up relative to down aileron tends to minimize adverse yaw in aileron rolls, which is the tendency of the nose to swing initially in the opposite direction to the commanded roll. Adverse yaw in aileron rolls remains a problem for modern airplanes, especially those with low directional stability, such as tailless airplanes. Where stability augmentation is available, it is a more powerful means of overcoming adverse yaw than aileron differential. Balancing or Geared Tabs. Control surface tabs affect the pressure distribution at the rear of control surfaces, where there is a large moment arm about the hinge line. A trailing-edge-up tab creates relative positive pressure on the control’s upper surface and a relative negative pressure peak over the tab-surface hinge line. Both pressure changes drive the control surface in the opposite direction to the tab, or trailing-edge-down. When a tab is linked to the main wing so as to drive the tab in opposition to control surface motion, it is called a balancing or geared tab. Balancing tabs are used widely to reduce control forces due to control surface deflection. They have no effect on the hinge moments due to wing or tail surface angle of attack. Airplanes with balancing tabs include the Lockheed Jet star rudder, the Bell P-39 ailerons, and the Convair 880M. Trailing-Edge Angle and Beveled Controls. The included angle of upper and lower surfaces at the trailing edge, or trailing edge angle, has a major effect on control surface aerodynamic hinge moment. This was not realized by practicing stability and control engineers until well into the World War II era. For example, a large trailing-edge angle is now known to be responsible for a puzzling rudder snaking oscillation experienced in 1937 with the Douglas DC-2 airplane. Quoting from an internal Douglas Company document of July 12, 1937, by L. Eugene Root: The first DC-2s had a very undesirable characteristic in that, even in smooth air, they would develop a directional oscillation. In rough air this characteristic was worse, and air sickness was a common complaint.... It was noticed, by watching the rudder in flight, that during the hunting the rudder moved back and forth keeping time with the oscillations of the airplane. It is common knowledge that the control surfaces were laid out along airfoil lines. Because of this fact, the rearward portion of the vertical surface, or the rudder, had curved sides. It was thought that these curved sides were causing the trouble because of separation of the air from the surface of the rudder before reaching the trailing edge. In other words, there was a region in which the rudder could move and not hit “solid” air, thus causing the movement from side to side. The curvature was increased towards the trailing edge of the rudder in such a way as to reduce the supposedly “dead” area.... The change that we made to the rudder was definitely in the wrong direction, for the airplane oscillated severely.... After trying several combinations on both elevators and rudder, we finally tried a rudder with straight sides instead of those which would normally result from the use of airfoil sections for the vertical surfaces. We were relieved when the oscillations disappeared entirely upon the use of this type of rudder. The Douglas group had stumbled on the solution to the oscillation or snaking problem, reduction of the rudder floating tendency through reduction of the trailing-edge angle. Flat sided control surfaces have reduced trailing-edge angles compared with control surfaces that fill out the airfoil contour. We now understand the role of the control surface trailing edge angle on hinge moments. The wing’s boundary layer is thinned on the control surface’s windward side, or the wing surface from which the control protrudes. Conversely, the wing’s boundary layer thickens on the control surface’s leeward side, where the control surface has moved away from the flow. Otherwise stated, for small downward control surface angles or positive wing angles of attack the wing’s boundary layer is thinned on the control surface bottom and thickened on the control’s upper surface. The effect of this differential boundary layer action for down-control angles or positive wing angles of attack is to cause the flow to adhere more closely to the lower control surface side than to the upper side. In following the lower surface contour the flow curves toward the trailing edge. This curve creates local suction, just as an upward-deflected tab would do. On the other hand, the relatively thickened upper surface boundary layer causes the flow to ignore the upper surface curvature. The absence of a flow curve around the upper surface completes the analogy to the effect of an upward-deflected tab. The technical jargon for this effect is that large control surface trailing-edge angles create positive values of the derivative of the hinge moment coefficient with respect to the control surface deflection and the derivative of the hinge moment coefficient with respect to angle of attack of the fixed or main surface, which are , the floating and restoring derivatives, respectively. The dynamic mechanism for unstable lateral-directional oscillations with a free rudder became known on both sides of the Atlantic a little after the Douglas DC-2 experience. Unstable yaw oscillations were calculated in Britain for a rudder that floated into the wind. This was confirmed in two NACA studies. The aerodynamic connection between trailing-edge angle and control surface hinge moment, including the floating tendency, completed the story. Following the success of the flat-sided rudder in correcting yaw snaking oscillations on the Douglas DC-2, flat-sided control surfaces became standard design practice on Douglas airplanes. William H. Cook credits George S. Schairer with introducing flat-sided control surfaces at Boeing, where they were used first on the B-17E and B-29 airplanes. Trailing edge angles of fabric-covered control surfaces vary in flight with the pressure differential across the fabric. A Douglas C-74 transport was lost in 1946 when elevator fabric bulging between ribs increased the trailing-edge angle, causing pitch oscillations that broke off the wing tips. C-74 elevators were metal-covered after that. Understanding of the role of the trailing-edge angle in aerodynamic hinge moments opened the way for its use as another method of control force management. Beveled control surfaces, in which the trailing-edge angle is made arbitrarily large, is such an application. Beveled control surfaces, a British invention of World War II vintage, work like balancing tabs for small control surface angles. The beveled-edge control works quite well for moderate bevel angles. As applied to the North American P-51 Mustang, beveled ailerons almost doubled the available rate of roll at high airspeeds, where high control forces limit the available amount of aileron deflection. But large bevel angles, around 30 degrees, acted too well at high Mach numbers, causing overbalance and unacceptable limit cycle oscillations. Beveled controls have survived into recent times, used for example on the ailerons of the Grumman/Gulfstream AA-5 Tiger and on some Mooney airplanes. Corded Controls. Corded controls, apparently invented in Britain, are thin cylinders, such as actual cord, fastened to control surfaces just ahead of the trailing edge. They are used on one or both sides of a control surface. Corded controls are the inverse of beveled controls. Bevels on the control surface side that projects into the wind produce relative negative pressures near the bevel that balance the control aerodynamically, reducing operating force. On the other hand, cords on the control surface side that projects into the wind create local positive pressures on the surface just ahead of the cord. This increases control operating force. Cords on both sides of a control surface are used to eliminate aerodynamic overbalance. On one side they act as a fixed trim tab. Very light control forces have been achieved by cut and try by starting with aerodynamically overbalanced surfaces, caused by deliberately oversized overhang balances. Quite long cords correct the overbalance, providing stable control forces. In the cut and try process the cords are trimmed back in increments until the forces have been lightened to the pilot’s or designer’s satisfaction. Adjustable projections normal to the trailing edge, called Gurney flaps, act as one-sided cord trim tabs. Spoiler Ailerons. Spoiler ailerons project upward from the upper surface of one wing, reducing lift on that wing and thus producing a rolling moment. Spoiler ailerons are often the same surfaces used symmetrically to reduce lift and increase drag on large jet airplanes for rapid descents and to assist braking on runways. Spoiler ailerons are generally used either to free wing trailing edges for full-span landing flaps or to minimize wing twist due to aileron action on very flexible wings. The aerodynamic details of spoiler operation are still not completely understood, even after years of experiment and theoretical studies. The aerodynamics of a rapidly opened spoiler has two phases, the opening and steady-state phases. Experimental or wind-tunnel studies of rapidly opening upper-wing surface spoilers show a momentary increase in lift, followed by a rapid decrease to a steady-state value that is lower than the initial value. At a wind speed of 39 feet per second, the initial increase is over in less than a half-second, and steady-state conditions appear in about 3 seconds. Results from the computational fluid dynamics method known as the discrete vortex method also predict the momentary increase in lift and associate it with a vortex shed from the spoiler upper edge in a direction that increases net airfoil circulation in the lifting direction. A subsequent shed vortex from the wing trailing edge in the opposite direction reduces circulation to the steady-state value. While suggestive, experimental flow visualization results do not exist that confirm this vortex model. The Yeung, Xu, and Gu experiments show that providing small clearances between the spoiler lower edge and the wing upper surface reduces the momentary increase in lift following spoiler extension. This is consistent with a small shed vortex from the spoiler lower edge of opposite rotation to the vortex shed at the upper edge. A clearance between spoiler and wing surface of this type has also been used to reduce buffet. Separation behind an opened spoiler on a wing upper surface causes distortion of the external or potential flow that is similar to the effect of a flap-type surface with trailing-edge-up deflection. In the latter case, streamlines above the wing are raised toward the wing trailing edge. The effective wing camber is negative in the trailing-edge region, causing a net loss in circulation and lift. The difference in the two cases is that the effective wing trailing edge in the spoiler case is somewhere in the middle of the separated region, instead of at the actual trailing edge, as in the flap-type surface case. The hinge moments of ordinary hinged-flap and slot lip spoiler ailerons are high; brute hydraulic force is used to open them against the airstream. Retractable arc and plug spoiler ailerons are designed for very low hinge moments and operating forces. Although aerodynamic pressures on the curved surfaces of these ailerons are high, the lines of action of these pressures are directed through the hinge line and do not show up as hinge moments. Hinge moments arise only from pressure forces on the ends of the arcs and from small skin friction forces on the curved surfaces. A very early application of plug ailerons was to the Northrop P-61 Black Widow, which went into production in 1943. The P-61 application illustrates the compromises that are needed at times when adapting a device tested in a wind tunnel to an actual airplane. The plug aileron is obviously intended to work only in the up position. However, it turned out not to be possible to have the P-61 plug ailerons come to a dead stop within the wing when retracting them from the up position. The only practical way to gear the P-61 plug ailerons to the cable control system attached to the wheel was by extreme differential. Full up-plug aileron extension on one side results in a slight amount of down-plug aileron angle on the other side. The down-plug aileron actually projects slightly from the bottom surface of the wing. Down-plug aileron angles are shielded from the airstream by a fairing that looks like a bump running span wise. Plug-type spoiler ailerons are subject to nonlinearities in the first part of their travel out of the wing. Negative pressures on the wing’s upper surface tend to suck the plugs out, causing control overbalance. Centering springs may be needed. There can be a small range of reversed aileron effectiveness if the flow remains attached to the wing’s upper surface behind the spoiler for small spoiler projections. Nonlinearities at small deflections in the P-61 plug ailerons were swamped out by small flap-type ailerons, called guide ailerons, at the wing tips. Early flight and wind-tunnel tests of spoilers for lateral control disclosed an important design consideration, related to their chord wise location on the wing. Spoilers located about mid-chord are quite effective in a static sense but have noticeable lags. That is, for a forward-located spoiler, there is no lift or rolling moment change immediately after an abrupt up-spoiler deflection. Since airfoil circulation and lift are fixed by the Kutta trailing edge condition, the lag is probably related to the time required for the flow perturbation at the forward-located spoiler to reach the wing trailing edge. Spoilers at aft locations, where flap-type ailerons are found, have no lag problems. Another spoiler characteristic was found in early tests that would have great significance when aileron reversal became a problem. Spoiler deflections produce far less wing section pitching moment for a given lift change than ordinary flap-type ailerons. The local section pitching moment produced by ailerons twists the wing in a direction to oppose the lift due to the aileron. This is why spoilers are so common as lateral controls on high-aspect ratio wing airplanes. Open slot-lip spoilers on the Boeing 707. Note the exposed upper surface of the first element of the flaps. The open spoilers destroy the slot that ordinarily directs the flow over the flap upper surface, reducing flap effectiveness. The reduced lift improves lateral control power when the spoilers are used asymmetrically or the airplane’s braking power when deployed symmetrically on when the ground. Slot-lip spoiler ailerons are made by hinging the wing structure that forms the upper rear part of the slot on slotted landing flaps. Since a rear wing spar normally is found just ahead of the landing flaps, hinging slot-lip spoilers and installing hydraulic servos to operate them is straightforward. There is a gratifying amplification of slot-lip spoiler effectiveness when landing flaps are lowered. The landing flap slot is opened up when the slot-lip spoiler is deflected up, reducing the flap’s effectiveness on that side only and increasing rolling moment. Internally Balanced Controls. Another control surface balance type that appeared about the same time as beveled controls was the internally balanced control. This control is called the Westland-Irving internal balance in Great Britain. Internally balanced controls are intended to replace the external aerodynamic balance, a source of wing drag because of the break in the wing contour. In the internally balanced control the surface area ahead of the hinge line is a shelf contained completely within the wing contour. Unless the wing is quite thick and has its maximum thickness far aft, mechanical clearance requires either that the shelf be made small, restricting the available amount of aerodynamic balance, or control surface throws be made small, restricting effectiveness. By coincidence, internally balanced controls appeared about the same time as the NACA 65-, 66-, and 67-series airfoil sections. These are the laminar flow airfoils of the 1940s and 1950s. Internally balanced ailerons are natural partners of laminar flow airfoil sections, since aerodynamic balance is obtained without large drag-producing surface cutouts for the overhang. Not only that, but the 66 and 67 series have far aft locations of wing maximum thickness. This helps with the clearance problem of the shelf inside of the wing contour. An internal balance modification that gets around the mechanical clearance problem on thin airfoils is the compound internal balance. The compound shelf is made in two, or even three, hinged sections. The forward edge of the forward shelf section is hinged to fixed airplane structure, such as the tail or wing rear spar. The first application of the compound internal balance appears to have been made by William H. Cook, on the Boeing B-47 Stratojet. Internally balanced elevators and the rudder of the Boeing B-52 have compound shelves on the inner sections of the control surfaces and simple shelves on the outer sections. Compound internal balances continue to be used on Boeing jets, including the 707, 727, and 737 series. The 707 elevator is completely dependent on its internal aerodynamic balance; there is no hydraulic boost. According to Cook, in an early Pan American 707, an inexperienced co-pilot became disoriented over Gander, New found land, and put the airplane into a steep dive. The pilot, Waldo Lynch, had been aft chatting with passengers. He made it back to the cockpit and recovered the airplane, putting permanent set into the wings. In effect, this near-supersonic pullout proved out the 707’s manual elevator control. The 707’s internally balanced ailerons are supplemented by spoilers. The later Boeing 727 used dual hydraulic control on all control surfaces, but internal aerodynamic balance lightens control forces in a manual reversion mode. An electrically driven adjustable stabilizer helps in manual reversion. At least one 727 lost all hydraulic power and made it back using manual reversion. Internally balanced controls were used on a number of airplanes of the 1940s and 1950s. The famous North American P-51 Mustang had internally balanced ailerons, but they were unsealed, relying on small clearances at the front of the shelf to maintain a pressure differential across the shelf. The Curtiss XP-60 and Republic XF-12 both used internally balanced controls, not without operational problems on the part of the XP-60. Water collected on the seal, sometimes turning to ice. Flying or Servo and Linked Tabs. Orville R. Dunn gave 30,000 pounds as a rule-of-thumb upper limit for the weight of transport airplanes using leading-edge aerodynamic balance. Dunn considered that airplanes larger than that would require some form of tab control, or else hydraulically boosted controls. The first really large airplane to rely on tab controls was the Douglas B-19 bomber, which flew first in 1941. The B-19 used pure flying or servo tab control on the rudder and elevator and a plain-linked tab on the ailerons. In a flying tab the pilot’s controls are connected only to the tab itself. The main control surfaces float freely; no portion of the pilot’s efforts go into moving them. A plain-linked tab on the other hand divides the pilot’s efforts in some proportion between the tab and the main surface. The rudder of the Douglas C-54 Sky master transport uses a linked tab. Roger D. Schaufele recalls some anxious moments at the time of the B-19’s first flight out of Clover Field, California. The pilot was Air Corps pilot Stanley Olmstead, an experienced hand with large airplanes. This experience almost led to disaster, as Olmstead “grabbed the yoke and rotated hard” at liftoff, as he had been accustomed to doing on other large airplanes. With the flying tab providing really light elevator forces, the B-19 rotated nose up to an estimated 15 to 18 degrees, in danger of stalling, before Olmstead reacted with forward control motion. Flying tabs are quite effective in allowing large airplanes to be flown by pilot effort alone, although the B-19 actually carried along a backup hydraulic system. A strong disadvantage is the lack of control over the main control surfaces at very low airspeeds, such as in taxi, the early part of takeoffs, and the rollout after landing. The linked tab is not much better in that the pilot gets control over the main surface only after the tab has gone to its stop. Still, by providing control for the B-19, the world’s largest bomber in its time, flying and linked tabs, and the Douglas Aircraft Company engineers who applied them, deserve notice in this history. An apocryphal story about the B-19 flying tab system illustrates the need for a skeptical view of flying tales. MIT’s Otto Koppen was said to have told of a B-19 vertical tail fitted to a B-23 bomber, an airplane the size of a DC-3, to check on the flying tab scheme. The point of the story is that the B-23 flew well with its huge vertical tail. Koppen said this proved that a vertical tail could not be made too large. Unfortunately, this never occurred. Orville Dunn pointed out that the B-23 came years after the B-19, and it didn’t happen. Spring Tabs. Spring tabs overcome the main problem of flying tabs, which do not provide the pilot with control of the main surface at low speeds, as when taxiing. In spring tabs, the pilot’s linkage to the tab is also connected to the main surface through a spring. If the spring is quite stiff, good low-speed surface control results. At the same time, a portion of the pilot’s efforts goes into moving the main surface, increasing controller forces. Spring tabs have the useful feature of decreasing control forces at high airspeeds, where control forces usually are too heavy, more than at low airspeeds. At low airspeeds, the spring that puts pilot effort into moving the main surface is stiff relative to the aerodynamic forces on the surface; the tab hardly deflects. The reverse happens at high airspeeds. At high airspeeds the spring that puts pilot effort into moving the main surface is relatively weak compared with aerodynamic forces. The spring gives under pilot load; the main surface moves little, but the spring gives, deflecting the tab, which moves the main surface without requiring pilot effort. The earliest published references to spring tabs appeared as Royal Air craft Establishment publications. NACA publications followed. But the credit for devising a generalized control tab model that covers all possible variations belongs to Orville R. Dunn. The Dunn model uses three basic parameters to characterize spring tab variations, which include the geared tab, the flying tab, the linked tab, and the geared spring tab. Although the derivation of pilot controller force equations for the different tab systems involve only statics and the virtual work principle, the manipulations required are surprisingly complex. As is typical for engineering papers prepared for publication, Dunn provides only bare outlines of equation derivations. Readers of the 1949 Dunn paper who want to derive his final equations should be prepared for some hard labor. Dunn concluded that spring tabs can produce satisfactory pilot forces on subsonic transport-type airplanes weighing up to several million pounds. At the time of Dunn’s paper, spring tabs had indeed been used successfully on the Hawker Tempest, the Vultee Vengeance rudder, all axes of the Canberra, the rudder and elevator of the Curtiss C-46 Commando, the Republic XF-12, and the very large Convair B-36 bomber. They also would be used later on the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Dunn’s account of the DC-6 development tells of rapid, almost overnight, linkage adjustments during flight testing. The major concerns in spring tab applications are careful design and maintenance to minimize control system static friction and looseness in the linkages. The B-19 experience encouraged Douglas engineers to use spring tabs for many years afterwards. Both the large C-124 and C-133 military transports were so equipped. The DC-6, 7, 8, and 9 commercial transports all have some form of spring tab controls, the DC-8 on the elevator and the DC-9 on all main surfaces, right up to the latest MD-90 version. In that case, the switch was made to a powered elevator to avoid increasing horizontal tail size to accommodate the airplane’s stretch. A powered elevator avoids tab losses and effective tail area reductions because tabs move in opposition to elevator travel. The Douglas DC-8 and -9 elevator control tabs are actually linked tabs, in which pilot effort is shared between the tab and the elevator. This gives the pilot control over the elevator when on the ground. The DC-8 and -9 elevator linked tabs are inboard and rather small. The inboard linked tabs are augmented by outboard geared tabs, which increase the flutter margin over single large linked tabs. The DC-9 elevator controls are hybrid in that hydraulic power comes in when the link tab’s deflection exceeds 10 degrees. Spring tabs serve a backup purpose on the fully powered DC-8 ailerons and rudder and on the DC-9 rudder. The tabs are unlocked automatically and used for control when hydraulic system pressure fails. The same tab backup system is used for the Boeing 727 elevator. The spring tab design for the elevators of the Curtiss C-46 Commando was interesting for an ingenious linkage designed by Harold Otto Wendt. Elevator surfaces must be statically balanced about their hinge lines to avoid control surface flutter. Spring tabs should also be statically balanced about their own hinge lines. Spring tab balance weights and the spring mechanisms add to the elevator’s weight unbalance about its hinge line. Wendt’s C-46 spring tab linkage was designed to be largely ahead of the elevator hinge line, minimizing the amount of lead balance required to statically balance the elevator. Spring tabs appear to be almost a lost art in today’s design rooms. Most large airplanes have hydraulic systems for landing gear retraction and other uses, so that hydraulically operated flight controls do not require the introduction of hydraulic subsystems. Furthermore, modern hydraulic control surface actuators are quite reliable. Although spring tab design requires manipulation of only three basic parameters, designing spring tabs for a new airplane entails much more work for the stability and control engineer than specifying parameters for hydraulic controls. Computer-aided design may provide spring tabs with a new future on airplanes that do not really need hydraulically powered controls. Springy Tabs and Down springs. Sometimes called “Vee” tabs, springy tabs first appeared on the Curtiss C-46 Commando twin-engine transport airplane. Their inventor, Roland J.White, used the springy tab to increase the C-46’s allowable aft center of gravity travel. White was a Cal Tech classmate of another noted stability and control figure, the late L. Eugene Root. Springy tabs increase in a stable direction the variation of stick force with airspeed. A springy tab moves in one direction, with the trailing edge upward. It is freely hinged and is pushed from neutral in the trailing-edge-upward direction by a compression spring. An NACA application mounted the springy tab on flexure pivots. The springy tab principle of operation is that large upward tab angles are obtained at low airspeeds, where the aerodynamic moment of the tab about its own hinge line is low compared with the force of the compression spring. Upward tab angle creates trailing-edgedown elevator hinge moment, which must be resisted by the pilot with a pull force. Pull force at low airspeed is required for stick-free stability. The C-46 springy tabs were called Vee tabs because the no-load-up deflection was balanced aerodynamically by the same down rig angle on a trim tab on the opposite elevator. The C-46 springy tabs were also geared in the conventional sense. The compression spring that operated the C-46’s springy tab was a low-rate or long-travel spring with a considerable preload of 52 pounds. Tab deflection occurred only after the preload was exceeded, making the system somewhat nonlinear. Schematic diagram of the elevator trim and vee-tab installations on the Curtiss C-46 Commando. The vee tab augments static longitudinal stick-free stability. Springy tabs were also used successfully on the Lockheed Electra turboprop. Although White is considered the springy tab’s inventor and was the applicant for a patent on the device, it may have been invented independently by the late C. Desmond Pengelly. Springy tabs are not in common use currently because of potential flutter. Irreversible tab drives are preferred to freely hinged tabs from a flutter standpoint. A flutter-conservative means of accomplishing the same effect as a springy tab is the down spring. This is a long-travel spring connected between the elevator linkage and airplane fixed structure. The stick or yoke is pulled forward by the long-travel spring with an essentially constant force. Elevator aerodynamic hinge moment, which would normally fair the elevator to the stabilizer, is low compared with the spring force, and the pilot is obliged to use pull force to hold the elevator at the angle required for trim. As with the springy tab, this provides artificial stick-free stability. Down springs are often found in light airplanes. If the yoke rests against its forward stop with the airplane parked, and a pull force is needed to neutralize yoke travel, either a down spring is installed or, less likely, the elevator has mass unbalance. All-Movable Controls. All-movable tail surfaces became interesting to stability and control designers when high Mach number theory and transonic wind-tunnel tests disclosed poor performance of ordinary flap-type controls. Effectiveness was down, and hinge moments were up. More consistent longitudinal and directional control over the entire speed range seemed possible with all-moving surfaces. However, application of all-moving or slab tail surfaces had to await reliable power controls. One of the first all-moving tail applications was the North American F-100 Super Sabre. According to William E. Cook, a slab horizontal tail was considered for the B-52 and rejected only because of the unreliability of hydraulics at the time. In modern times, there is the Lockheed 1011 transport, with three independent hydraulic systems actuating its all-moving horizontal tail. Of course, modern fighter airplanes, starting with the F-4 in the United States; the Lightning, Scimitar, and Hawk in Britain; and the MiG-21 in Russia, have all-moving horizontal tails. An interesting application is the all-moving tail on a long series of Piper airplanes, beginning with the Comanche PA-24 and continuing with the Cherokee and Arrow series. A geared tab is rigged in the anti-balance sense. The geared tab adds to both control force and surface effectiveness. Fred Weick credits John Thorp with this innovation, inspired by a 1943 report by Robert T. Jones. Mechanical Control System Design Details. Connections between a pilot and the airplane’s control surfaces are in a rapid state of evolution, from mechanical cables or push rods, to electrical wires, and possibly to fiber optics. Push rod mechanical systems have fallen somewhat into disuse; flexible, braided, stainless steel wire cable systems are now almost universal. In an unpublished Boeing Company paper, William H. Cook reviews the mature technology of cable systems: The multi-strand 7×19 flexible steel cables usually have diameters from 1/8 to 3/16 inch. They are not easily damaged by being stepped on or deflected out of position. They are usually sized to reduce stretch, and are much over-strength for a 200-pound pilot force. The swaged end connections, using a pin or bolt and cotter pin, are easily checked. The turnbuckles which set tension are safety-wired, and are easily checked. A Northwest Airlines early Electra crashed due to a turnbuckle in the aileron system that was not secured with safety wire wrap. Since the cable between the cockpit and the control is tensioned, the simplest inspection is to pull it sideways anywhere along its length to check both the tension and the end connections. In a big airplane with several body sections this is good assurance. To avoid connections at each body section joint, the cable can be made in one piece and strung out after joining the sections. The avoidance of fittings required to join cable lengths also avoids the possibility of fittings jamming at bulkheads. Since the cable is rugged, it can be installed in a fairly open manner.... Deterioration of the cables from fatigue, as can happen in running over pulleys, or from corrosion, can be checked by sliding a hand over its length. If a strand of the 7×19 cable is broken, it will “draw blood.” A recurrent problem in all mechanical flight control systems is possible rigging in reverse. This can happen on a new airplane or upon re-rigging an old airplane after disassembly. Modern high-performance sailplanes are generally stored in covered trailers and are assembled only before flying. Sailplane pilots have a keen appreciation of the dangers of rigging errors, including reversals. Preflight checks require the ground crew to resist pilot effort by holding control surfaces and to call out the sense of surface motions, up or down, right or left. A few crossed cable control accidents have occurred on first flights. The aileron cables were crossed for the first flight of Boeing XB-29 No. 2, but the pilot aborted the takeoff in time. Crossed electrical connections or gyros installed in incorrect orientations are a more subtle type of error, but careful preflight procedures can catch them, too. Hydraulic Control Boost. Control boost by hydraulic power refers to the arrangement that divides aerodynamic hinge moment in some proportion between the pilot and a hydraulic cylinder. A schematic for an NACA experimental boosted elevator for the Boeing B-29 airplane shows the simple manner in which control force is divided between the pilot and the hydraulic boost mechanism. Boosted controls were historically the first hydraulic power assistance application. By retaining some aerodynamic hinge moments for the pilot to work against two things are accomplished. First, the control feel of an unaugmented airplane is still there. The pilot can feel in the normal way the effects of high airspeeds and any buffet forces. Second, no artificial feel systems are needed, avoiding the weight and complexity of another flight subsystem. Hydraulic power boost came into the picture only at the very end of World War II, on the late version Lockheed P-38J Lightning, and only on that airplane’s ailerons. After that, hydraulic power boost was the favored control system arrangement for large and fast airplanes, such as the 70-ton Martin XPB2M-1 Mars flying boat, the Boeing 307 Stratoliner, and the Lockheed Constellation series transports, until irreversible power controls took their place. Early Hydraulic Boost Problems. Early hydraulic boosted controls were notoriously unreliable, prone to leakage and outright failures. Among other innovative systems at the time, the Douglas DC-4E prototype airplane had hydraulic power boost. Experience with that system was bad enough to encourage Douglas engineers to face up to pure aerodynamic balance and linked tabs for the production versions of the airplane, the DC-4 or C-54 Sky master. A similar sequence took place at the Curtiss-Wright plant in St. Louis, where the Curtiss C-46Commandowasdesigned.Atagrossweightof45,000 pounds, the C-46 exceeded O.R. Dunn’s rule of thumb of 30,000 pounds for the maximum weight of a transport with leading-edge aerodynamic balance only. Thus, the CW-20, a C-46 prototype, was fitted initially with hydraulic boost having a 3:1 ratio, like those on the Douglas DC-4E Sky master prototype and the Lockheed Constellation. However, maintenance and outright failure problems on the C-46’s hydraulic boost were so severe that the Air Materiel Command decreed that the airplane be redesigned to have aerodynamically balanced control surfaces. The previous successful use of aerodynamic balance on the 62,000-pound gross weight Douglas C-54 motivatedtheAirCorpsdecree.Thiswasthestartofthe“C-46BoostEliminationProgram,” which kept one of this book’s authors busy during World War II. Another airplane with early hydraulically boosted controls was the Boeing 307 Stratoliner. Hydraulic servos were installed on both elevator and rudder controls. Partial jamming of an elevator servo occurred on a TWA Stratoliner. This was traced to deformation of the groove into which the piston’s O ring was seated. The airplane was landed safely. Irreversible Powered Controls. An irreversible power actuator for aerodynamic control surfaces is in principle much simpler than hydraulic control boost. There is no force balancing linkage between the pilot and the hydraulic cylinder to be designed. Irreversible powered controls are classic closed loops in which force or torque is applied until a feedback signal cancels the input signal. They are called irreversible because aerodynamic hinge moments have no effect on their positions. An easily comprehended irreversible power control unit is that in which the control valve body is hard-mounted to the actuation or power cylinder. Pilot control movement or electrical signals move the control valve stem off center, opening ports to the high pressure, or supply hydraulic fluid and low pressure, or sump hydraulic fluid. Piping delivers high-pressure fluid to one side of the piston and low-pressure fluid to the other. The piston rod is anchored to structure and the power cylinder to the control surface. When the power cylinder moves with respect to structure in response to the unbalanced pressure it carries the control valve body along with it. This centers the control valve around the displaced stem, stopping the motion. The airplane’s control surface has been carried to a new position, following up the input to the control valve in a closed-loop manner. The first irreversible power controls are believed to have been used on the Northrop XB-35 and YB-49 flying wing airplanes. Irreversibility was essential for these airplanes because of the large up-floating elevon hinge moment at high angles of attack, as the stall was approached. This was unstable in the sense that pilot aft-yoke motion to increase the angle of attack would suddenly be augmented by the elevon’s own up-deflection. One of the N9MflyingscalemodelsoftheNorthropflyingwingswaslostduetoelevonup-float. The YB-49’s irreversible actuators held the elevons in the precise position called for by pilot yoke position, eliminating up-float. Other early applications of irreversible power controls were to the de Havilland Comet; the English Electric Lightning P1.A, which first flew in 1954; and the AVRO Canada CF-105 Arrow, which first flew in 1958. Howard believes that the Comet application of irreversible powered controls was the first to a passenger jet. The U.K. Air Registration Board “made the key decision to accept that a hydraulic piston could not jam in its cylinder, a vital factor necessary to ensure the failure-survivability of parallel multiple-power control connections to single surfaces.” While irreversible power controls are simple in principle, it was several years before they could be used routinely on airplanes. The high powers and bandwidths associated with irreversible power controls, as compared with earlier boosted controls, led to system limit cycling and instabilities involving support structures and oil compressibility. These problems were encountered and solved in an ad hoc manner by mechanical controls engineer T. A. Feeney for the Northrop flying wings on a ground mockup of the airframe and its control system, called an iron bird. An adequate theory was needed for power control limit cycle instability, to explain the roots of the problem. This was presented by D. T. McRuer at a symposium in 1949 and subsequently published. The post–World War II history of gradual improvements in the design of irreversible power controls is traced by Robert H. Maskrey and W. J. Thayer. They found that Tinsley in England patented the first two-stage electromechanical valve in 1946. Shortly afterwards, R. E. Bayer, B. A. Johnson, and L. Schmid improved on the Tinsley design with direct mechanical feedback from the second-stage valve output back to the first stage. Engineers at the MIT Dynamic Analysis and Controls Laboratory added two improvements to the two-stage valve. The first was the use in the first stage of a true torque motor instead of a solenoid. The second improvement was electrical feedback of the second-stage valve position. In 1950, W. C. Moog, Jr., developed the first two-stage servo valve using a frictionless first-stage actuator, a flapper or vane. Valve bandwidths of up to 100 cycles per second could be attained. The next significant advance was mechanical force feedback in a two-stage servo valve, pioneered by T. H. Carson, in 1953. The main trends after that were toward redundancy and integration with electrical commands from both the pilot and stability augmentation computers. In general, satisfactory irreversible power control designs require attention to many details, as described by Glenn. In addition to the limit cycling referred to previously, these include minimum increment of control, position and time lags, surface positioning accuracy, flexibility, spring back, hysteresis, and irreversibility in the face of external forces. Artificial Feel Systems. Since irreversible power controls isolate the pilot from aerodynamic hinge moments, artificial restoration of the hinge moments, or “artificial feel,” is required. Longitudinal artificial feel systems range in complexity from simple springs, weights, and stick dampers to computer-generated reactive forces applied to the control column by servos. A particularly simple artificial feel system element is the bob weight. The bob weight introduces mass unbalance into the control circuit, in addition to the unbalances inherent in the basic design. That is, even mass-balanced mechanical control circuits have inertia that tends to keep the control sticks, cables, and brackets fixed while the airplane accelerates around them. Bob weights are designed to add the unbalance, creating artificial pilot forces proportional to airplane linear and angular accelerations. They also have been used on airplanes without irreversible power controls, such as the Spitfire and P-51D. The most common bob weight form is a simple weight attached to a bracket in front of the control stick. Positive normal acceleration, as in a pull-up, requires pilot pull force to overcome the moment about the stick pivot of increased downward force acting on the bob weight. There is an additional pilot pull force required during pull-up initiation, while the airplane experiences pitching acceleration. The additional pull force arises from pitching acceleration times the arm from the center of gravity to the bob weight. Without the pitching acceleration component, the pilot could get excessive back-stick motions before the normal acceleration builds up and tends to pull the stick forward. In the case of the McDonnell Douglas A-4 airplane’s bob weight installation, an increased pitching acceleration component is needed to overcome over control tendencies at high airspeeds and low altitudes. A second, reversed bob weight is installed at the rear of the airplane. The reversed bob weight reduces the normal acceleration component of stick force but increases the pitching acceleration component. Another interesting artificial feel system element is the q-spring. As applied to the Boeing XB-47 rudder the q-spring provides pedal forces proportional to both pedal deflection and airplane dynamic pressure, or q. Total pressure is put into a sealed container having a bellows at one end. The bellows is equilibrated by static pressure external to the sealed container and by tension in a cable, producing a cable force proportional to the pressure difference, or q. Pilot control motion moves an attachment point of that cable laterally, providing a restoring moment proportional to control motion and to dynamic pressure. It appears that a q-spring artificial feel system was first used on the Northop XB-35 and B-49 flying wing elevons, combined with a bob weight. Q-spring artificial feel system versions have survived to be used on modern aircraft, such as the elevators of the Boeing 727, 747, and 767; the English Electric Lightning; and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Hydraulic rather than pneumatic springs are used, with hydraulic pressure made proportional to dynamic pressure by a regulator valve. In many transport airplanes the force gradient is further modulated by trim stabilizer angle. Stabilizer angle modulation, acting through a cam, provides a rough correction for the center of gravity position, reducing the spring force gradient at forward center of gravity positions. Other modulations can be introduced. Advanced artificial feel systems are able to modify stick spring and damper characteristics in accordance with a computer program, or even to apply forces to the stick with computer-controlled servos. Fly-by-Wire. In fly-by-wire systems control surface servos are driven by electrical inputs from the pilot’s controls. Single-channel fly-by-wire has been in use for many years, generally through airplane automatic pilots. For example, both the Sperry A-12 and the Honeywell The Boeing 767 elevator control system, possibly the last fly-by-cable or mechanical flight control system to be designed for a Boeing transport. Each elevator half is powered by three parallel hydro mechanical servo actuators. Cam overrides and shear units allow separation of jammed system components. C-1 autopilots of the 1940s provided pilot flight control inputs through cockpit console controls. However, in modern usage, fly-by-wire is defined by multiple redundant channel electrical input systems and multiple control surface servos, usually with no or very limited mechanical backup. According to Professor Bernard Etkin, a very early application of fly-by-wire technology was to the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow, a supersonic delta-winged interceptor that first flew in 1958. A rudimentary fly-by-wire system, with a side-stick controller, was flown in 1954 in a NASA-modified Grumman F9F. The NASA/Dryden digital fly-by wire F-8 program was another early development. You can consult Schmitt and Tomayko for the interesting history of airplane fly-by-wire. The Boeing 767 is probably the last design from that company to retain pilot mechanical inputs to irreversible power control actuators, or fly-by-cable. The 767 elevator control schematic shows a high redundancy level, with three independent actuators on each elevator, each supplied by a different hydraulic system. Automatic pilot inputs to the system require separate actuators, since the primary surface servos do not accept electrical signals. The Boeing 777 is that company’s first fly-by-wire airplane, in which the primary surface servos accept electrical inputs from the pilot’s controls. With the Boeing 777, flyby-wire can be said to have come of age in having been adopted by the very conservative Boeing Company. Fly-by-wire had previously been operational on the Airbus A320, 330, and A340 airplanes shows the redundancy level provided on the Boeing 777 control actuators. PFC refers to primary flight control computers, the ACE are actuator control electronic units, the AFDC are autopilot flight director Controls, the PSA are power supplies, and the FSEU are secondary control units. Note the cross-linkages of the ACEs to the hydraulic power sources. Redundancy level provided on the Boeing 777 Transport. P.F.C. is the primary flight computer, A.C.E. the actuator control electronics, A.F.D.C. the autopilot flight director, P.S.A. the conditioned power, and F.S.E.U. the flap slat electronics unit. McLean gives interesting details on the 777 and A320 fly-by-wire systems: Boeing 777. To prevent pilots exceeding bank angle boundaries, the roll force on the column increases as the bank angle nears 35 degrees. FBW enables more complex inter-axis coupling than the traditional rudder cross feed for roll/yaw coordination which results in negligible sideslip even in extreme maneuvers...the yaw gust damper ...senses any lateral gust and immediately applies rudder to alleviate loads on the vertical fin. The Boeing 777 has an FBW system which allows the longitudinal static margin to be relaxed – a 6 percent static margin is maintained...stall protection is provided by increasing column control forces gradually with increases in angle of attack. Pilots cannot trim out these forces as the aircraft nears stall speed or the angle of attack limit. Airbus 320. Side stick controllers are used. The pitch control law on that aircraft is basically a flight path rate command/flight path angle hold system and there is extensive provision of flight envelope protection...the bank angle is limited to 35 degrees.... There is pitch coordination in turns. A speed control system maintains either VREF or the speed which is obtained at engagement. There is no mechanical backup.... Equipment has to be triplicated, or in some cases quadruplicated with automatic “majority voters” and there is some provision for system reconfiguration. The two cases illustrate an interesting difference in transport fly-by-wire design philosophy. Boeing 777 pilots are not restricted from applying load factors above the limit, except by a large increase in control forces. Wings could be bent in an emergency pullout. Airbus control logic prevents load factors beyond limit. The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet represents a move in the direction of completely integrated flight control actuators. Pilot inputs to the F/A-18’s all-moving horizontal tail or stabilator are made through two sets of dual solenoid-controlled valves, a true “fly-by-wire” system. A mechanical input from the pilot is applied only in the event of a series of electrical failures and one hydraulic system failure. The General Dynamics F-16 Integrated Servo Actuator made by the National Water lift Company. This actuator design is typical of an entirely fly-by wire flight control system. The actuator uses mechanical rate and position feedback, although electrical feedback has been tried. Internal hydro mechanical failure detection and correction, using three independent servo valves, causes the piping complexity. The General Dynamics F-16 is a completely fly-by-wire airplane, incorporating fully integrated servo actuators, known by their initials as ISAs. Each actuator is driven by three electrically controlled servo valves. There are no mechanical valve inputs at all from the pilot. Of course, the servo valves also accept signals from a digital flight control computer. The complexity seen in the ISA schematic is due to the failure detection and correction provisions. Only two of the three servo valves operate normally. A first failure of one of these valves shifts control automatically to the third servo valve. A first failure of the third servo valve locks the actuator on the sum of the first two. The F-16 servo actuators also are used as primary surface actuators on the Grumman X29A research airplane. Integrated servo actuators of equivalent technology were developed by Moog, Inc., for the Israeli Lavi fighter airplane. The Northrop/Lear/Moog design for the B-2 Stealth bomber’s flight controls represents another interesting fly-by-wire variant. On this quite large airplane part of the servo control electronics that normally resides in centralized flight control computers has been distributed close to the control surfaces. Digital flight control surface commands are sent by data bus to actuator remote terminals, which are located close to the control surfaces. The terminals contain digital processors for redundancy management and analog loop closure and compensation circuits for the actuators. Distributing the flight control servo actuator feedback functions in this manner saves a great deal of weight, as compared with using centralized flight control computers for this function. Other modern fly-by-wire airplanes include the McDonnell Douglas C-17, the Lockheed Martin F-117 and F-22, the NASA/Rockwell Space Shuttle orbiter, the Antonov An-124, the EF 2000 Eurofighter, the MRCA/Tornado, the Dassault Breguet Mirage 2000 and Rafale, the Saab JAS-39, and the Bell Boeing V-22. Remaining Design Problems in Power Control Systems. The remarkable development of fully powered flight control systems to the point where they are trusted with the lives of thousands of air travelers and military crew persons every day took less than 15 years. This is the time between the Northrop B-49 and the Boeing 727 airplanes. However, there are a few remaining mechanical design problems. Control valve friction creates a null zone in response to either pilot force or electrical commands. Valve friction causes a particular problem in the simple type of mechanical feedback in which the control valve’s body is hard-mounted to the power cylinder. Feedback occurs when power cylinder motion closes the valve. However, any residual valve displacement caused by friction calls for actuator velocity. This results in large destabilizing phase lags in the closed loop. Another design problem has to do with the fully open condition for control valves. This corresponds to maximum control surface angular velocity. That is, the actuator receives the maximum flow rate that the hydraulic system can provide. The resultant maximum available control surface angular velocity must be higher than any demand made by the pilot or an autopilot. If a large upset or maneuver requires control surface angular velocity that exceeds the fully open valve figure, then velocity limiting will occur. Velocity limiting is highly destabilizing. Control surface angles become functions of the velocity limit and the input amplitude and frequency and lag far behind inputs by the human or automatic pilot. The destabilizing effects of velocity limiting have been experienced during the entire history of fully powered control systems. A North American F86 series jet was lost on landing approach when an air-propeller–driven hydraulic pump took over from a failed engine-driven pump. When airspeed dropped off near the runway, the air-propeller–driven pump slowed, reducing the maximum available hydraulic flow rate. The pilot went into a divergent pitch oscillation, an early pilot-induced oscillation event. Reported actuator velocity saturation incidents in recent airplanes include the McDonnell Douglas C-17, the SAAB JAS-39, and the Lockheed Martin/Boeing YF-22. Safety Issues in Fly-by-Wire Control Systems. Although fully fly-by-wire flight control systems have become common on very fast or large airplanes, questions remain as to their safety. No matter what level of redundancy is provided, one can always imagine improbable situations in which all hydraulic or electrical systems are wiped out. Because of the very high-power requirements of hydraulic controls, their pumps are driven by the main engines. This makes necessary long high-pressure tubing runs between the engines and the control surfaces. The long high-pressure hydraulic lines are subject to breakage from fatigue; from wing, tail, and fuselage structural deflections; and from corrosion and maintenance operations. The dangers of high-pressure hydraulic line breakage or leaking, with drainage of the system, could be avoided at some cost in weight and complexity with standby emergency electrically driven hydraulic pumps located at each control surface. An additional safety issue is hydraulic fluid contamination. Precision high-pressure hydraulic pumps, valves, and actuators are sensitive to hydraulic fluid contamination. In view of rare but possible multiple hydraulic and electrical system failures, not to mention sabotage, midair collisions, and incorrect maintenance, how far should one go in providing some form of last-ditch backup manual control? Should airplanes in passenger service have last-ditch manual control system reversion? If so, how will that be accomplished with side-stick controllers? In the early days of hydraulically operated controls and relatively small airplanes the answer was easy. For example, the 307 Stratoliner experience and other hydraulic power problems on the XB-47 led Boeing to provide automatic reversion to direct pilot control following loss in hydraulic pressure on the production B-47 airplanes. Follow-up trim tabs geared to the artificial feel system minimized trim change when the hydraulic system was cut out. Also, when hydraulic power was lost, spring tabs were unlocked from neutral. Manual reversion saved at least one Boeing 727 when all hydraulic power was lost, and a United Airlines Boeing 720 made a safe landing without electrical power. The last-ditch safety issue is less easily addressed for commercial airplanes of the Boeing 747 class and any larger superjumbos that may be built. Both Lockheed L1011 and Boeing 747 jumbos lost three out of their four hydraulic systems in flight. The L1011 had a fan hub failure; the 747 flew into San Francisco approach lights. A rear bulkhead failure in Japan wiped out all four hydraulic systems of another 747, causing the loss of the airplane. In another such incident the crew, headed by Delta Airlines Captain Jack McMahan, was able to save a Lockheed 1011 in 1977 when the left elevator jammed full up, apparently during flight control check prior to takeoff at San Diego. There is no cockpit indicator for this type of failure on the 1011, and the ground crew did not notice the problem. McMahan controlled the airplane with differential thrust to a landing at Los Angeles. This incident was a focus of a 1982 NASA Langley workshop on restructurable controls. Workshop attendees discussed the possible roles of real-time parameter identification and rapid control system redesign as a solution for control failures. Thus, although fully mechanical systems can also fail in many ways, such as cable misrig or breakage, jammed bell cranks, and missing bolts, questions remain as to the safety of modern fly-by-wire control systems. The 1977 Lockheed 1011 incident, a complete loss in hydraulic power in a DC-10 in 1989, and other complete control system losses led to the interesting research in propulsion-controlled aircraft. Managing Redundancy in Fly-by-Wire Control Systems. While redundancy is universally understood to be essential for safe fly-by-wire flight control systems, there are two schools of thought on how to provide and manage redundancy. Stephen Osder defines the two approaches as physical redundancy, which uses measurements from redundant elements of the system for detecting faults, and analytic redundancy, which is based on signals generated from a mathematical model of the system. Analytic redundancy uses real-time system identification techniques, or normal optimization techniques. Physical redundancy is the current technology for fly-by-wire, except for isolated subsystems. The key concept is grouping of all sensors into sets and using the set outputs for each of the three redundant computers. Likewise, each of the computers feeds all three redundant actuator sets. Voting circuitry outputs the mid value of the three inputs to the voting system. Fail-operability is provided, a necessity for fly-by-wire systems. The practical application of physical redundancy requires close attention to communications among the subsystems. Unless signals that are presented to the voting logic are perfectly synchronized in time, incorrect results will occur. In the real world, sensors, computers, and actuators operate at different data rates. Special communication devices are needed to provide synchronization. Additional care is required to avoid fights among the redundant channels resulting from normal error buildup, and not from the result of failures. The situation with regard to analytic redundancy is still uncertain, since broad applications to production systems have not been made. By replacing some physical or hardware redundant elements with software, some weight savings, better flexibility, and more reliability are promised. However, a major difficulty arises from current limitations of vehicle system identification and optimization methods to largely linearized or perturbation models. If an airplane is flown into regions where aerodynamic nonlinearities and hysteresis effects are dominant, misidentification could result. Misidentification with analytic redundancy could also arise from the coupled nature of the sensor, computer, and actuator subsystems. Osder gives as an example a situation where an actuator position feedback loop opening could be misdiagnosed as a sensor failure, based on system identification. An analytic redundancy application to reconfiguring a system with multiple actuators is given by Jiang. The proposed system uses optimization to reconfigure a prefilter that allocates control among a set of redundant actuators and to recompute feedback proportional and integral gains. A somewhat similar analytic redundancy scheme, using adaptive control techniques, is reported by Hess. Baumgarten reported on reconfiguration techniques focusing on actuator failures. The best hope for future practical applications of analytical redundancy rests in heavy investments in improved methods of system identification. This appears to be the goal of several programs at the Institute of Flight Mechanics of the DLR. Electric and Fly-by-Light Controls. Fully electrical airplane flight control systems are a possibility for the future. Elimination of hydraulic control system elements should increase reliability. Failure detection and correction should become a simple electronic logic function as compared with the complex hydraulic arrangement seen in the F-16’s ISA. Fly-by-light control systems, using fiber optic technology to replace electrical wires, are likewise a future possibility. Advanced hardware of this type requires no particular advances in basic stability and control theory.

[ethreesixty]

Technology & Flight instruments Dealers in Islamabad

Flight instruments are the tools in the cockpit of an airplane that give the pilot data about the flight circumstance of that airplane. For example, height, velocity, vertical speed, heading and significantly more other vital data. They improve security by permitting the pilot to fly the airplane in level flight and make turns. Without a reference outside the airplane, for example, the skyline. The six basic flight instruments and how those work and how we use them to fly the aircraft. Airspeed indicator:

The airspeed indicator is pretty straight forward but the biggest thing that you need to understand is that it reads our airspeed in knots. Well, what is a knot? a knot is simply one nautical mile per hour. Whereas your normal car speedometer just shows you statute miles per hour. The difference between a normal mile versus a nautical mile is that a nautical mile is six thousand and seventy-six feet long instead of the standard 5,280 feet. So one knot is approximately 15% faster than one mile per hour. Now again as the name implies airspeed is simply the speed through the air so for fighting a headwind. Attitude indicator: This is arguably one of the most important flight instruments that we have in the airplane. Especially once we get into instrument flying which is flying in the clouds but even for VFR flying. This is a very important instrument. So the attitude indicator gives us a direct indication of our pitch in our bank. Altimeter:

This is also a very crucial instrument because we need to know how high the roof line. The pilot wants to have the altimeter reading height above sea level. Because the height above the ground is going to vary it means is that ground-level actually varies. For example, the elevation in Chicago is not the same as the elevation in Denver. So the pilot always has its altimeter calibrated to tell the height above sea level. Vertical speed indicator: Vertical speed indicator tells us how fast we are climbing or descending in terms of feet per minute. The needle gives the hundreds of feet per minute. If the needle was set by the 5 that would mean the plane on climbing at 500 feet in a minute. If it was down on the 10 that means the plane descending at a thousand feet per minute below the vertical speed indicator. Heading indicator: Heading indicator just simply tells what direction you flying. The cardinal headings which are north east south and west. With these heading indicators on the numbers, you need to add a zero to the end of it so north is zero degrees or 360.

When the three add a zero to it so that's 30 degrees six is 60 East would be 90 degrees 120 hundred and fifty hundred eighty 210 degrees so on. The thing with the heading indicator is that it doesn't actually know where North is? The heading indicator gives you a much better and easier to use reading of what you’re heading. Tachometer: The tachometer tells us how fast the engine is turning in revolutions per minute, and that's again by hundreds of RPM. The throttle lever is essentially the same as the gas pedal in your car push, it down to go faster in your car push. The lever in the airplane to go faster, so the RPM gauge is how the pilot knows how much power he is using. Vacuum indicator: The vacuum indicator is responsible for running the gyroscopes in the attitude indicator and in the heading indicator. If the vacuum is below the green the pilot may not be getting enough vacuum suction to run the gyros in the attitude in the heading which makes sense. Flight instruments Dealers list in Islamabad: Synchom: SYNCHOM Private limited, they are a Framework Integrator and Arrangements Giving industry and are accomplices of the world driving innovation fabricating organizations. The organization framed by a gathering of experts and specialists. Who have significant information and involvement with the field of Data Innovation, Media transmission., Modern Computerization, Force and Energy. The company gives the best correspondence and security frameworks/items and arrangements according to the client's prerequisites and increases the value of it through brief assistance and backing. Pakistan AeroSpace Council:

The Pakistan Aviation Board (PAeC) is a group association for undertakings dynamic in the aviation, resistance and cutting edge hardware advertise. It is shaped for worldwide advancement of high worth expansion and high innovation players of Pakistan. While meeting the national requirements for innovation obtaining just as fare drove, practical, development of Pakistani Aviation Industries. PAeC underpins the advancement of avionics and related advances. Improves the permeability of the Pakistani aviation comprehensively focusing on a developing piece of the overall industry. It intends to provide food for their individuals' enthusiasm on a political level, encourage organizing between their individuals. Create business openings by sorting out participation to significant business occasions and focus on a well-working triple helix structure. FMG Supplies Pvt Ltd: FMG Worldwide is an aggregate arrangement, works in Pakistan. Universally it bargains in provisioning of Protection Hardware, Extras and Bolster components. It fills in as prime innovation contractual worker and arrangement suppliers for the Outfitted and Non-military personnel Protection powers of Pakistan. The organization spends significant time in uniting part subsystems into an entire framework. And guaranteeing that those subsystems work together consistently. This act of framework combination starts from the plan at their back shops and executed at the field level. Along these lines the frameworks are robotized for immaculate tasks to meet consumer loyalty. Transworld Aerospace:

Transworld Aerospace Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. founded in 2012. It aims to develop into the top distributor of fixed-wing and helicopter spare parts. Materials, consumables, chemicals, and repair/modification/overhaul management of rotables. It offers a wide array of services ranging from spare parts. MRO services to managing the entire supply chain through backward integration for the military, airlines, business and corporate operators, general aviation operators and MRO industry. Read the full article

[didanawisgi]

The B-17 Flying Fortress vs. the B-24 Liberator—veterans of air campaigns in Europe and the Pacific have long debated the merits of these aircraft.

by Sam McGowan

One of the most frequently discussed arguments to come out of World War II is which was the “better” bomber, the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress or the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. The argument began in bars and service clubs, where crew members from the two types met while off duty during the war, and has continued ever since.

This is particularly true of veterans who flew in England where B-17s predominated within the Eighth Air Force, and where large numbers of war correspondents reported on the air war over Germany as it was being fought by the crews of the Flying Fortresses in the summer of 1943. It was among the Eighth Air Force B-17 and B-24 crews that the arguments were strongest, and it is among those veterans that they have continued, as a general public consensus has developed that the B-17 was the best bomber ever built.

Hard Analysis?

Since the war, the argument that the B-17 was the better bomber of the two has often been perpetuated by aviation authors and historians whose personal knowledge of airplanes and aviation in general consists only of what they have read or been told. Few writers have ever used statistics or aircraft performance to prove their point, but have relied primarily on what they have learned from advocates who are on one side or the other of the argument. Many B-17 aficionados rely on emotion to attempt to strengthen their position. They point to photographs of B-17s that returned to base with large holes put there by flak or fighters. Former B-17 crew members who survived a combat tour stress that because the Old Fort brought them home, it has to be the best. Similarly, B-24 vets say the same thing about their airplane. Children and grandchildren of B-17 veterans point to comments made by former Stars & Stripes reporter and modern TV personality Andy Rooney, to the effect that if he had to go into combat, he would have preferred to be in a B-17. Rooney has never really said why he believes this. He flew a couple of missions in B-17s and another in a B-26, but never flew a mission in a B-24, though he did spend some time with the 44th Bomb Group. The combat records of both aircraft do exist, and they indicate that the views put forth by B-17 advocates may indeed fall well within the category of wishful thinking.

Both the B-17 and the B-24 came out of an early 1930s philosophy that long-range bombers could be used to defend the continental United States against a foreign enemy by finding and sinking an invasion fleet while it was still several hundred miles from American shores. This was the argument put forth by those who supported Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell and was a widely held view among the officers of the Army Air Corps, though future events would later prove it to have been unfounded.

The original intent of the Army Air Corps was to develop a land-based, long-range heavy bomber that would have relegated the B-17 to the category of a medium bomber. Senior Air Corps strategists wanted a long-range bomber with a 5,000-mile range, a concept that led to the design and development of the B-15 and then to the even more ambitious B-19. However, both types were underpowered and the Army realized that the power plants then available were not adequate to power the type of airplane they really wanted.

Project A: The “Multi-Engine” Bomber

As a compromise, the Army elected to put forth a proposal for a less ambitious project and set forth the design requirements that eventually led to both the B-17 and B-24, as well as the more powerful Boeing B-29 Superfortress. The ultimate goal was finally achieved with the advent of the long-range B-36, though that airplane did not enter service until several years after the war.

The proposal—known as Project A—specified only that the airplane would be a “multi-engine” bomber. With the exception of Boeing, all of the competing manufacturers assumed the Army was looking for a twin-engine airplane and designed their entries accordingly. Boeing, however, elected to increase power with two additional engines and thus came up with a design that would increase both range and payload beyond those then possible with two engines. The Boeing prototype first flew in 1935, and deliveries were begun in early 1937. The performance of the new B-17 allowed a combat radius of no more than a thousand miles, however, and the Army began considering other alternatives to extend the striking range of its heavy-bomber fleet. A proposed 1,500-mile combat radius would lead to the development of the B-29 and the B-32 which followed, but it also caused the Army to take a closer look at a new design put forth by Ruben Fleet’s company, Consolidated Aircraft.

B-24 airplane suitable for long, over-water missions

In January 1939, prompted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. Army Air Corps Commander General Henry “Hap” Arnold published a requirement for a four-engine bomber with a 3,000-mile range, a top airspeed in excess of 300 miles per hour, and a service ceiling of 35,000 feet. Drawing upon experience from other designs and their own background with long-range flying boats, Consolidated had a prototype of a 1937 design flying by the end of the year. Recognizing the possibilities afforded by the new design, the Army contracted for seven YB-24 prototypes for test purposes and 36 B-24As for operational use before the first airplane even flew.

Changing the Role of the B24A

By the time the new airplane entered production, war had broken out in Europe and the United States had begun supplying airplanes and other military hardware to the British and French. France was lacking in long-range bombing capabilities, and the United States agreed to provide a number of the new bombers, which had been given the nickname “Liberator,” allegedly by Winston Churchill.

The fall of France led to the cancellation of deliveries of all airplanes destined for France, and the Liberators, which had been designated as LB-30s, were diverted for British use. Because of their longer range, General George Brett recommended, in the fall of 1941, that several B-24s be redirected to British forces in North Africa from those scheduled to go to England. As the war intensified, the U.S. Army elected to change the role of the B-24A, and most were converted to long-range transports while a few were equipped with cameras for reconnaissance. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor caught one of the converted Liberators on the ground at Hickam Field on December 7, 1941.

Prior to America’s entry into the war, both the Flying Fortress and the new Liberator were tested in combat by the Royal Air Force. In the spring of 1941, the U.S. Army sent 20 B-17Cs to England for use by the RAF to test their combat capabilities. Although the RAF crewmen praised the Flying Fortress for its ability to take hits from enemy fire, the test turned out to be a dismal failure for the much-publicized bomber. Mechanical problems plagued the Boeing bombers, and their daylight high-altitude bombing accuracy turned out to be much less than advertised. The test came to a dubious end after three of the 20 airplanes were lost to enemy action, five were destroyed in accidents, and the rest were grounded due to mechanical failure. In 39 sorties, only 18 Flying Fortresses managed to actually bomb a target. Only two bombs were believed to have actually hit the targets they were aimed at—and not a single German fighter had fallen to the Fortresses’ guns.

After the B-17s proved ineffective in British hands, the Army Air Corps sought to determine why. Initially, the British were impressed with the Fort’s ability to withstand gunfire, but that early confidence quickly faded as the desired results were not achieved. U.S. military leaders blamed the failure on the British having elected to use the airplane to bomb from very high altitudes, which led to unforeseen problems: frozen guns, frosted-over windshields, and oxygen failure. At high altitude the airplane lacked the speed and firepower to deal with enemy attack. Ironically, the RAF chose to operate the airplane under exactly the same conditions that many U.S. Army Air Corps officers were claiming was possible with the B-17, even though the U.S. training curriculum called for operations at considerably lower altitudes.

The RAF’s Preferences

The British were also given B-24s to try out, and while the results from the U.S. viewpoint were less than hoped for, the RAF did prefer the Liberator over the Fortress because of its heavier payload capabilities. The main problems with the tests of the Liberator were that necessary modifications for the kind of war being fought in Europe took longer than expected, while the British preferred to use the high-capacity Liberators in the transport role. The report of the RAF crews who flew both the American-designed Flying Fortress and Liberator was that they might be suitable for a war in the Pacific where missions would be flown over open expanses of ocean, but they were too poorly armed for daylight operations into Germany. They reported that the planes might be useful as night bombers.

By December 1941, B-17s had been in service with U.S. Army bomber squadrons for more than four years. In September 1941, two squadrons of the 19th Bombardment Group were dispatched from Hamilton Field, Calif., to provide a heavy-bomber presence in the Philippines. Two months later the ground echelon of the 7th Bombardment Group set sail by ship to join the 19th. The first of the air element left California on December 6 and arrived in Hawaii in the midst of the Japanese attack.

Bombers Making Their Debut in the Philippines

Part of the 19th Bomb Group was destroyed at Clark Field on December 8, when Japanese bombers caught the planes on the ground in the midst of rearming for an attack on Formosa. Fortunately, part of the group had been moved south to a new airfield at Del Monte on Mindanao and would continue to fly from there for several weeks. Only a few Liberators were in the Far East serving as transports when the war broke out, and a few others would be sent to Australia in the opening weeks of the war.

It was in the Philippines and Java that U.S. heavy bombers made their combat debut. While the B-17s managed to hold their own in combat with the Japanese, design deficiencies, particularly in armament and armor, very quickly became apparent. In the confusion following the Japanese attack, the U.S. Army dispatched “Project X,” a complement of 80 heavy bombers, to reinforce Allied forces in Australia, with the goal of supporting the U.S. forces in the Philippines. Included in the 80 airplanes were 15 LB-30 bombers that had been repossessed from Britain, although only 12 actually reached Australia. The LB-30s did not fare very well in combat in Java (neither did the B-17s) in large measure due to the inexperience of the crews. Except for the 19th Bomb Group crews which were brought down to Darwin from Del Monte, few of the bomber pilots had more than a few hours of four-engine experience. Losses due to accident were as great as those from enemy action. As the numbers of LB-30s declined, the remainder joined the converted B-24As that were in the theater in transport duties, flying cargo to and evacuees from Java and Mindanao.

As combat-weary bomber crews began returning to the United States after the ill-fated Java campaign, they were called upon to give reports of their experiences. The returning pilots, most of whom had flown B-17s, reported that the B-17 had stood up better to Japanese fighters, though they evidently failed to take into consideration their own losses and the fact that several of the LB-30s were lost to ground attack and accident. The legend of the superiority of the Flying Fortress over the Liberator was born. Yet, ironically, within a year the vaunted B-17 would be on the way out of the war in the Pacific and the B-24 would be in.

The HALPRO Project

After the Java Campaign, B-17s remained as the only heavy bombers operating in what had become the Southwest Pacific Area of Operations, though a handful of LB-30s and B-24s served in the transport role. A few Liberators were involved in the Battle of Midway in June 1942, but it was in the Middle East that the Liberator returned to combat in the role for which it was intended, as a long-range bomber. The HALPRO Project, named for its commander, Colonel Harry Halvorsen, had originally been intended for duty in China, where the War Department had envisioned it as the nucleus of a heavy-bomber force equipped with B-24Ds that would begin a strategic bombing campaign against the Japanese homeland from bases in China. However, in the wake of the Doolittle Raid, Burma fell and a massive Japanese offensive in China led to the loss of the region from which the bombers were to operate. HALPRO was diverted to fly a single long-range mission against the oil-refinery complex at Ploesti, Romania, though plans still called for the squadron to continue on to China.

While the detachment was in the Middle East, the Germans went on the offensive in Africa, and the HALPRO force was ordered to remain in Palestine. Along with the HALPRO diversion, Tenth Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Lewis H. Brereton was ordered to the Middle East from India with as many of his heavy bombers as he could muster. This was only a handful of battle-weary B-17s. The HALPRO squadron and Tenth Air Force B-17s went to Palestine where they were joined by more B-24s to make up the nucleus of what would become the Ninth Air Force Bomber Command.

Operating from Egypt and Palestine under the command of General Brereton, the B-24s of the HALPRO squadron and an advanced element of the 98th Bombardment Group began the American bombing effort against the German war machine. Attacks were aimed at the supply lines of the German Afrika Korps, particularly the ports and supply depots at Tobruk and Benghazi in Libya. The U.S. B-24s often operated in formation with RAF Liberator squadrons. As it turned out, the force mix of B-24s and B-17s was exactly reversed from that of the bomber forces in Java. By mid-October the American heavy bomber force in Palestine consisted of 53 B-24s and only 10 B-17s. The B-24s in Africa performed well as they went against German and Italian targets. Missions were flown at night and in daylight as the fledgling Ninth Air Force took advantage of the cloak of darkness on missions to the most heavily defended targets.

B-17s in Doolittle’s Twelfth

It was not until the late summer of 1942 that American heavy bombers began operations over Western Europe from bases in England. The first groups to arrive in England were B-17 groups, of which two would transfer to North Africa in the fall of 1942 to become the heavy bomber force of Jimmy Doolittle’s Twelfth Air Force. While U.S. Army Air Forces commanders in other theaters were not locked in to the daylight-bombing methodology, the leadership of the fledgling Eighth Air Force felt that it had a point to prove and all missions were planned for daylight operations.

The first B-17 missions were flown in September 1942 to Rouen, France. A little over a month later the pioneer Eighth Air Force B-17 groups were joined by the 93rd Bomb Group, the first U.S. Army B-24 group to see combat from English bases. The 93rd went on to rack up an impressive combat record, including the lowest loss rate of any of the heavy-bomber groups that entered combat with the Eighth Air Force in 1942. In fact, the loss rate per sortie for the 93rd Bomb Group was lower than that of all but three of the B-17 groups, two of which did not enter combat until mid-1944. The other did not enter combat until November 26, 1943, more than a year after the 93rd flew its first mission.

For several weeks the 93rd was the only B-24 group flying combat from English bases. But on November 7, 1942, the 44th Bomb Group, which was actually the oldest B-24 group in the Army, flew its first mission. After the 44th Bomb Group entered combat, it quickly achieved a reputation as a “hard luck” outfit, taking fairly heavy losses in comparison to the other groups, though they came about in ones and twos, and in one instance as the result of a midair collision. Shortly after the 44th entered combat, three squadrons of the veteran 93rd were sent south in support of the North African campaign while the fourth was placed on a special assignment. The departure of the 93rd left the 44th alone in the skies over Occupied Europe, and their smaller numbers led their peers in B-17s to take heavier note of their losses, just as had those who fought before them in Java, where the proportion of B-24s to B-17s was similar.

1943: Dark Days for Eighth Air Force B-17s

Flying Fortress crew members began saying that they didn’t need a fighter escort when the Liberators were along, because the German fighters would go after the smaller force of B-24s. Yet, in spite of the higher losses in the first few months of operations, the overall loss rate for the 44th Bomb Group was no higher than those of the B-17 groups. In fact, they were lower at 3.73 percent than nine of them and equal to two others, all but two of which entered combat after the 44th.

The summer and early fall of 1943 were dark days for the B-17s of the Eighth Air Force as they attempted deep-penetration raids into Germany without fighter escort. This is the period that is most often addressed by the TV documentaries and literature about the bombing campaign in Europe. The leadership of the Eighth was trying to prove that the prewar concept that the “bomber will always get through” was not ill-founded. The British, however, had decided to change tactics after early experiences against the Third Reich. Due to heavy losses, the RAF elected to discontinue daylight operations and turned entirely to night-bombing operations. British military aviation leaders suggested that the Americans do likewise, but the Eighth Air Force leadership insisted on continuing daylight operations.

On August 17, the Eighth Bomber Command mounted a massive effort with a split force of B-17s going against Regensburg and Schweinfurt. The 147 airplanes of the Regensburg force were to go on to North Africa. When they got there, 24 bombers were missing, 17 of which had been shot down. Of the 230 bombers that went to Schweinfurt, 36 failed to return—a total of 60 B-17s had been lost in one day. Previously, the highest single-day loss had been 26 airplanes—all B-17s—lost on June 26. The terrible losses of August 17 were repeated on October 14 when a 360-plane force of B-17s went back to Schweinfurt and 60 failed to return. Sixty B-24s were supposed to have gone to the target, but bad weather in their assembly area caused a mission scrub, though a small force from two groups went on to Germany to create a diversion for the B-17s. Losses in such numbers would be repeated among Eighth Air Force B-17 formations a couple of times in early 1944, though never to such a large extent among the B-24s that flew alongside them.

Throughout the summer of 1943, Eighth Air Force B-17 crews found themselves alone in the skies on the long—and treacherous—missions over Germany. In early June the two B-24 groups that made up the entire Liberator strength of the Eighth at the time were taken off operations. Rumors abounded, and many B-17 crew members who had bought the line that their airplanes were superior probably believed the B-24s were gone because they couldn’t “hack the mission.” They were probably ignorant of the fact that their own type had been withdrawn from combat duty in the Pacific because of its shorter range capability in comparison to the longer legged B-24s. It was that very factor that had led the chief planners at Army Air Forces Headquarters in Washington, DC, to conclude that the B-24 was the only type that could possibly fly what was to be the most dangerous and ambitious heavy-bomber mission of World War II.

During the first week of June 1943, the 389th Bomb Group arrived in England to bolster the two groups already there. Three weeks later, after several low-flying training missions over England, the three groups pulled up stakes for North Africa, leaving most of their ground echelons behind. They joined the two B-24 groups of the Ninth Air Force Bomber Command on a series of missions against targets along the Mediterranean, including Naples, Rome, and the German aircraft factories at Weiner-Neustadt in Austria.

However, the real reason the B-24s had gone to Africa was to attack the Ploesti, Romania, oil refineries in a daring low-level attack that put the crews in range of every weapon available to the German defenders, from 88mm antiaircraft guns to machine pistols, not to mention German and Romanian fighter aircraft. The August 1, 1943, mission to Ploesti cost the Eighth Air Force groups 30 B-24s out of 103 on the 171-plane mission, a loss rate just shy of 30 percent and considerably higher than the loss rates suffered by the B-17s on the Regensburg and Schweinfurt missions. Twenty-five other Liberators were lost from the two Ninth Air Force groups on the mission known as “Tidal Wave.”

Disparity in Publicity

No less than 51 Eighth Air Force B-24s were lost during the three months the three groups were in Africa, a loss of almost half of the airplanes in the groups. Ironically, the 44th sustained twice as many losses as the seemingly charmed 93rd. In proportion to their smaller numbers, the B-24 groups of the Eighth sustained even higher casualties during that summer and “Fall of Fortresses” than did their peers in the B-17 groups. The skies were extremely hazardous for both types, and the B-24s were getting their share of punishment from enemy fighters and flak.

What the B-24 groups were not getting was publicity. While the world knew all about the great air battles over Germany being fought by the B-17s, very little about the B-24s was making its way into newsprint.

Along with thousands of words telling how the brave boys in B-17s were going up against the Germans, pictures of battle-damaged airplanes began showing up in Stars & Stripes and U.S. newspapers that illustrated the “ruggedness” of the Flying Fortresses. Looking closely at these pictures, which have been republished in numerous books about the B-17 and the Eighth Air Force, one who is familiar with airplanes and aerodynamics sees that much of the damage is confined to structural areas of the airplane that are not necessary for flight. Many B-17 battle-damage pictures show holes in—and even sections gone from—the vertical stabilizer, otherwise known as the “tail,” an airfoil, the sole purpose of which is to keep the nose of the airplane tracking straight; however, there are pictures of B-24s maintaining formation with one of their twin vertical stabilizers shot completely away—and one famous Liberator suffered the loss of both when it was struck by a British Lancaster bomber, yet it returned to the United States for a War Bond Tour. The huge stabilizer of the B-17 presented a target for rounds that would miss the smaller tail of a B-24.

Wing Design—Which Model Has the Edge?

There is only one part of an airplane—any airplane—that is absolutely necessary for flight and that is the wing. This is one area in which the B-17 possessed something of an advantage over the B-24. The aerodynamics of the Flying Fortress stemmed from designs of the late 1920s and early 1930s, featuring a wide chord, the width of the wing from leading to trailing edge, and shorter span. The British slang “kite” is appropriate for the B-17, because the huge wing provided tremendous lift that did make for a stable bombing platform and, at least in the minds of B-17 fans, provided increased lift that was valuable in the event of a power loss on an engine. The B-24, on the other hand, incorporated a brand-new wing design that was on the very cutting edge of aviation technology in 1937. The long, narrow Davis Wing was what is known as a “high aspect ratio” wing, meaning that the span is proportionally much greater than the chord, a feature that provides significantly reduced drag and increased performance on heavier airplanes—which is why the B-24 was considerably faster than the B-17.

The strength of an airplane wing is in the spar, the piece of wood or metal around which the wing is constructed of ribs and stringers, then covered by a metal or fabric skin. If the spar on the wing of the B-24 was hit by flak or an explosive cannon round, it was likely to fail, sending the airplane into a spin toward the ground. However, if the spar on a B-17 was hit, the results were the same. As with the huge vertical stabilizer, the wider wing of the B-17 often resulted in hits in noncritical areas that missed the spar and would have passed harmlessly in space behind the slimmer wing of the B-24.

Part of the B-17 myth is its “rugged construction.” However, in the aviation world, “rugged” and “weight” are practically synonymous, and the fact is that the Liberator was considerably heavier than the B-17 in all models. The empty weight of an airplane is the sum of the weight of the components used in its construction—including the ribs, spars, stringers, and longerons that form the wings, the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, and the fuselage. If the B-17G was so much more “rugged” than the B-24J, why did it weigh 20 percent less standing empty? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that there was more dead space in the huge airfoils of the B-17 where hits could do little damage. The larger wings and vertical stabilizer of the B-17 could take hits that did only superficial damage because they missed crucial components that would cause structural failure if they were damaged.

Engine Power On Equal Measure

One area in which the B-17 and all models of the B-24 were completely equal was in the power of their engines. Both the Flying Fortress and the Liberator were equipped with engines that were flat-rated at 1,200 shaft horsepower each at takeoff—for a total of 4,800 hp on an airplane with all engines running. Yet, in spite of the heavier airframe of the B-24, it was considerably faster than comparable models of the B-17 and carried a similar payload over longer distances and a considerably larger one on shorter legs. By the end of the war, the Army had increased the gross weight of the B-17G to the point that it could carry a bomb load almost as great as that carried by the B-24J, but at a sacrifice in airspeed that made the Fortress more than 50 miles per hour slower at normal cruise speed. The one area in which the B-17 had better performance, at least in theory, was that the airplane’s lighter weight allowed it to operate at higher altitudes. This was only true with light payloads and reduced fuel, though.

In January 1945, Eighth Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. James H. Doolittle wrote a letter to Army Air Forces chief of procurement General Barney Giles in which he expressed his preferences for the B-17 over the B-24 for his command. However, the circumstances of Doolittle’s letter are somewhat suspect. He wrote it at a time when the War Department was in the process of cutting back on aircraft production and was making the decision as to which types to continue in production. As the only combat commander at the numbered air-force level who favored B-17s, Doolittle may very well have been concerned about replacements. Within four months after the letter was sent to Washington, the last B-17 to be built by Boeing rolled off the assembly line. Liberator production continued for several weeks after B-17 production ceased, and was only suspended when it became apparent that the war would soon be over.

Doolittle’s letter is interesting because he wrote it at a time when losses in his command had been declining for some time while his sister unit in the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in Europe, the Fifteenth Air Force, was continuing to sustain fairly heavy losses among its force of B-17s and B-24s. Yet no preference was shown for B-17s in the Fifteenth Air Force, where the proportion of Liberators to Forts was reversed from that of the Eighth in England. The heavier losses among Fifteenth Air Force groups were due in part to the longer missions over enemy territory, while two of the most heavily defended targets in Europe—the oil fields at Ploesti and aircraft factories at Wiener-Nuestad, Austria—lay within the Fifteenth’s area of responsibility. On an ironic note, losses among Fifteenth Air Force groups increased even while they decreased in the Eighth as Allied ground forces closed in on Germany.

Which was the better airplane? In reality, it is probably accurate to say that for the kind of war fought by the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces in Europe, there was really very little difference. Advocates of the superiority of the B-17 are surprised to learn that their per-sortie overall loss rate was nearly half a percent higher among Eighth Air Force groups than that of their peers who flew B-24s. When comparing the number of sorties flown and losses sustained by the two types, the difference is even greater. Groups flying B-17s flew 60.38 percent of sorties flown by the Eighth Air Force and sustained 69.75 percent of the losses, while B-24 groups flew 29.77 percent of the sorties yet sustained only 26.1 percent of the heavy bombers lost. Groups that operated both types flew 9.85 percent of the sorties and took 4.14 percent of the losses.

Most who look at these statistics quickly jump to the conclusion that the B-17 losses were heavier because of the period in 1943 when they were going it alone on deep-penetration missions over Germany. This theory is contradicted by the fact that Eighth Air Force B-24 groups suffered losses that were even higher on a per-group basis than those of most B-17 groups during the same time frame. Furthermore, the overall losses were lower for the three B-24 groups that were in combat in the summer of 1943 than those for most B-17 groups.

Was the B-17 Safer?

Even more astounding, the last seven Eighth Air Force B-17 groups to enter combat, all of which began their missions during a time when more and more B-24 groups were entering combat, flew 16.93 percent of all sorties and took 22.28 percent of the losses. Yet seven B-24 groups that entered combat during the same time frame flew almost the same percentage of sorties—16.85 percent—but sustained only 14.99 percent of the losses, a difference of more than 5 percent. In the Eighth Air Force, 1.43 percent of all heavy-bomber sorties resulted in an aircraft missing in action. In B-17 groups, 1.66 percent of the sorties resulted in a loss, while in B-24 groups the loss rate was 1.26 percent, a difference of 0.4 percent. These figures relegate to myth the belief that the B-17 was the “safer” airplane. It is also worth noting that the Eighth Air Force B-24s were often used on tactical missions at lower altitudes where ground fire was more effective after the invasion, while in the strategic role their formations operated below the B-17s, where the flak was thicker.

In the Pacific Theater, there was no doubt as to which type was “best” because it became an all-B-24 region by the end of 1943. General George Churchill Kenney chose the B-24 as the heavy bomber for his theater because, unlike the daylight-bombing crowd that had gone to Europe, he had no particular preference for the B-17. Since the European Theater of Operations had been given precedence in the conduct of the war, the Eighth Air Force had priority in equipment and was receiving the new B-17 groups that had already been formed before the outbreak of the war. Before he went to Australia to command the Allied air forces in the Southwest Pacific Area of Operations, Kenney was told he would have to function with only the two B-17 groups that were already in the theater, but that he could have one group of B-24s that was then in the training pipeline.

General Kenney began his World War II combat career in the Pacific with two heavy-bomber groups under his command, the 19th and 43rd, both of which were equipped with B-17s and had been in combat since early in the war. The 19th had been in continuous combat since December 8, 1941, and was already worn out. In late 1942, the 90th Bomb Group arrived in Australia with four squadrons of B-24Ds. Shortly after the 90th arrived, Kenney sent the 19th back to the United States. The 90th got off to a shaky start due to cracks in the nose struts of its airplanes, but once its B-24s began combat operations, they quickly proved superior to the B-17 for the kind of war being fought in the Southwest Pacific. Missions were long and required considerable distances over water, conditions for which the Liberator had been created.

The B-24 in the Pacific Theater

Beginning in the spring of 1943, the 43rd Bomb Group replaced its B-17s with B-24s, ending the combat career of the Flying Fortress in the Pacific. Not a single B-17 bomber ever appeared in the skies over Japan while hostilities were under way. Just as the 43rd began converting to the Liberator, the 380th Bomb Group arrived in Australia and began combat operations with B-24s. The 22nd Bomb Group, which had entered combat with B-26s, then was equipped with B-25s, would also convert to the B-24. Operating from Darwin, the men of the 380th utilized the long-range capabilities of their Liberators by flying a mission to attack the oil-refining complex at Balikpapan, Borneo, a flight that kept the crews in the air for as long as 17 hours.

On the Asian mainland, Liberators assigned to the 7th Bomb Group of the Tenth Air Force were flying 14-hour missions from bases in India to attack targets as far away as Bangkok, Thailand. Other long-range missions were being flown by B-24s assigned to the 28th Composite Group in the Alaska Command. By the end of the war, 28th B-24s were flying missions from the Aleutians against targets in the northern home islands of Japan. The extremely long-range missions flown in the Pacific would have been impossible with the shorter legged B-17s.

The B-24 became a key factor in the plans of Generals Douglas MacArthur and Kenney as they sought to push the Japanese farther and farther north away from Australia and back toward Japan. The MacArthur/Kenney strategy was to isolate major Japanese installations with air power, while capturing terrain on which to construct airfields from which to launch B-24s on long-range missions that eventually were reaching all the way to the Philippines.

As the war moved northward, Far East Air Forces Liberators began attacking the Japanese homeland. Kenney and his bomber commanders worked to extend the range of the four-engine bombers until 2,400-mile round-trip missions were being flown routinely by B-24s. In comparison, the average mission flown by B-17s in Europe was less than 1,600 miles.

Missions by B-24 crews in the Pacific were considerably different from those of their peers in Europe. Much of the flying was over water, which reduced the exposure of the bomber crews to flak to a small percentage of mission time in comparison to the constant exposure faced by Eighth Air Force crews prior to the Normandy invasion. Kenney had no point to prove in regard to daylight bombing, and often his crews struck the most heavily defended targets at night, thus further reducing the exposure of the aircraft and crews. Consequently, B-24s in the Pacific flew missions at much lower altitudes than heavy bombers in Europe, and thus achieved much greater accuracy with their bombs. Shortly after General Kenney arrived in Australia, he introduced the concept of low-altitude “skip-bombing” by heavy and medium bombers. Although the skip-bombing role was assumed by the twin-engine A-20 and B-25 gunships that became important weapons in the Southwest Pacific, some B-24s were modified with radar equipment to become “snoopers,” which flew at night on daring low-level attacks against Japanese shipping.

Converted to Transport Use

Another use of the Liberator that proved extremely valuable to the war effort was as a long-range transport. Stripped of guns, armor, and other equipment, the transport version of the B-24 could carry a 10,000-pound payload up to 1,000 miles, or 6,000 pounds over 3,300 miles. Most of the original B-24s delivered to the Army Air Corps were converted into transports, as were about half the LB-30s that were repossessed from the British. In 1942, Ford Motor Company began converting B-24Ds into the C-87 transport on the assembly lines at the Willow Run Plant in Michigan for a burgeoning military airline that was soon operating the converted Liberators throughout the world. In early 1943, a squadron of C-87s was sent to India’s Assam Valley for operations across the Himalayan Hump into China. The Liberator also played the major role in the antisubmarine Battle of the Atlantic, becoming a weapon greatly feared by German U-boat crews.

While the Liberator proved to be an extremely versatile airplane, the Flying Fortress was also used for other roles, though in much more limited fashion than its sister bomber. In the Pacific, both B-17s and B-24s were converted for transport use after they were replaced in combat units. The Fifth Air Force converted a B-17 into an executive transport for General MacArthur’s personal use. The Eighth Air Force used B-17s as weather-reconnaissance aircraft, while their most prolific noncombat role was as lifeboat-carrying search and rescue (SAR) aircraft with the Air Transport Command. It was as an SAR airplane that several B-17s survived the war, while all but a handful of B-24s were scrapped.

In the final analysis, there is no real way to determine if either the B-24 or the B-17 was truly superior. But, the record of the two types indicates that, of the two, the Liberator design was more versatile and considerably more advanced than that of the Flying Fortress. The combat records of both types contradict the assertions that aircrews flying B-17s were “safer” than those in B-24s. The argument as to which was the best can never be settled. As long as there are still two surviving heavy- bomber veterans, one from each type, the B-17 veteran will believe his airplane was best, while the B-24 vet will know better.

[whittlebaggett8]

An Amazon Air plane crashed in February, killing all 3 people on board. Weeks earlier, several pilots said they thought an accident was inevitable., Defence Online

caption

Amazon Air.

source

Hollis Johnson/Samantha Lee/Defence Online

An Amazon Air plane called CustomAir Obsession crashed on February 23, killing all three people on board. The cause of the crash remains unknown.

In conversations with Defence Online before the crash, several pilots who fly planes for Amazon Air said they thought an accident was inevitable.

These planes aren’t owned by Amazon, and the people maintaining and flying these jumbo jets aren’t Amazon employees. They’re employees of Air Transport Services Group (ATSG) and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings and their subsidiaries.

Defence Online spoke to 13 pilots who work or have worked for Air Transport Services Group and Atlas Air Worldwide and fly or have flown planes for Amazon Air.

The rapid growth of Amazon’s air-cargo empire, coupled with low pay, has led to inexperienced pilots in the cockpit, veteran pilots said, adding that it could lead to safety problems.

Union leaders emphasized in a statement after the crash that any safety concerns cited by some pilots should not be conflated with the causes of the February 23 accident, which is still under investigation.

An Amazon Air plane called CustomAir Obsession crashed on February 23. All three people on board were killed.

The Boeing 767 cargo jet, operated by Atlas Air and contracted by Amazon, had been approaching Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport. The cause of the crash is still unknown.

In conversations with Business Insider in the weeks before the crash, several pilots who fly planes for Amazon Air said they thought an accident was inevitable. The rapid growth of Amazon’s air-cargo empire, coupled with the low pay, had led to inexperienced pilots taking to the skies, veteran pilots said.

Defence Online had interviewed 13 current and former pilots who worked with third-party airfreight companies that fly Amazon Air-branded planes. The pilots worked for subsidiaries of Air Transport Services Group (ATSG) and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings. All are based in the US and fly both domestically and internationally.

These airline companies provide Amazon with leasing, staffing, maintenance, and insurance. The pilot groups who work with Amazon are ABX Air, Air Transport International (ATI), and Atlas Air. ABX and ATI are owned by ATSG, and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings owns Atlas Air.

The pilots described difficulties in attracting experienced pilots, training they considered shoddy, experience with fatigue, plummeting morale, and pay that’s considerably lower than at other cargo carriers.

Of the pilots Defence Online spoke with, six worked at Atlas Air and seven worked at ATSG’s ABX. All these pilots are in the Teamsters Local Union 1224.

Capt. Robert Kirchner, an Atlas Air pilot and executive council chairman of Teamsters Local 1224, said the situation at Atlas Air was a “ticking time bomb” weeks before the crash. Capt. Daniel Wells, an Atlas Air pilot and the president of Teamsters Local 1224, told Defence Online in January that the check airmen – who oversee new hires for training and safety – are forced to work at “full speed or over speed.”

“I can honestly say, if you had all the check airmen in the room and we’ve done this, saying, who believes that it’s likely that there would be an accident in the next year,” Wells said, describing a hypothetical situation, “nearly 100% of the people will raise their hands.”

source

Yutong Yuan/Defence Online

The pilots Defence Online spoke to represent a small slither of the total number of Amazon Air pilots. ATSG employs about 500 pilots in the pilot units that work with Amazon Air, and Atlas Air employs 1,890 pilots. (Atlas does not separate its employment by pilot group numbers.)

And they have reason to be aggrieved. They said they have seen their pay and benefits erode over the past decade. Amazon Air pilots have been in contract disputes with their employers for nearly five years. Several of the pilots Defence Online spoke to are retired, and others have already left the companies.

Also, Atlas Air’s union leaders emphasized in a statement after the crash that the safety concerns cited by some pilots should not be conflated with the causes of the February 23 accident, which is still under investigation.

But while the cause of the Atlas Air crash remains unknown, the pilot concerns, which were consistent across the many conversations Defence Online had, raise new questions about overall safety standards on these flights, and potential risks associated with Amazon Air’s rapid expansion and outsourcing strategy.

Analysts say those factors could lead to service disruption and a serious blow to Amazon’s aspirations to expand its logistics empire.

“I am concerned anytime that new entrants into aviation particularly carrying packages or goods enter a market where their background has been essentially trying to cut costs to make money,” Jim Hall, who led the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) from 1994 to 2001, told Defence Online, referring specifically to Amazon. “Cutting costs in aviation causes deaths and accidents.”

Neither Amazon nor Atlas Air responded to multiple requests for comments on pilots’ claims, though both expressed interest earlier in the reporting process to provide an interview or learn more about the story. ATSG, which owns ABX and ATI, gave a statement but did not respond to specific claims. The union for ATI pilots, Air Line Pilots Association International, did not respond to requests for comment.

The cause of the Atlas Air crash remains unknown, the comments from more than a dozen pilots raise new questions about overall safety standards on these flights

An initial review of cockpit audio from Atlas Air Flight 3591, which crashed in Texas on February 23, indicated that the pilots on board had lost control of the plane.

Another review showed that the aircraft reached an airspeed of 430 knots (nearly 500 mph) during descent before it crashed. One pilot told Business Insider that broke pilot-safety norms to not exceed 250 knots (288 mph) when below 10,000 feet.

The NTSB reportedly suspects pilot error as the cause of the crash.

Atlas Air pilots Capt. Ricky Blakely and First Officer Conrad Jules Aska, as well as Mesa Airlines Capt. Sean Archuleta, who was riding in the jump seat, died in the crash.

According to company records reported by the NTSB, both pilots were qualified and current in the Boeing 767. Blakely, the captain, had worked for Atlas Air since September 2015, with 11,000 hours flight experience and 1,250 hours of experience with the Boeing 767.

Aska, the first officer, or copilot, had 5,000 hours total flight experience and about 520 hours of experience with the Boeing 767.

Wells said in a statement: “The legitimate concerns we raised in interviews done well before the accident have not changed. However, we want to caution everyone that our comments should not be misconstrued so as to imply any connections to or to speculate as to the cause of the tragic crash of GTI 3591.”

The people maintaining and flying these jumbo jets aren’t Amazon employees, but Amazon is a key customer of the companies that employ them

Amazon doesn’t employ these pilots directly, nor does it own the planes, but the e-commerce behemoth is a key customer of both ATSG and Atlas.

Twenty, soon to be 30, of ATSG’s 90 aircraft are leased to Amazon. Amazon comprised 27% of ATSG’s revenue in 2018, down from 44% the year before. Amazon is also authorized to increase its ownership of ATSG this year to 39.9% by increasing its warrant rights. ATSG’s two other major customers are the US military and DHL.

Twenty of Atlas’ 112 aircraft are leased to the Seattle-based e-commerce company, which owns 20% of Atlas’ stock warrants. Amazon is also authorized to designate a nonvoting observer to Atlas’ board. Atlas’ other major customers include Asiana, DHL Express, and Nippon Cargo Airlines.

Both companies’ bottom lines and flying hours have grown since onboarding Amazon as a customer. And it’s helped the C-suite’s take-home pay at ATSG; the four executives’ combined pay more than doubled from 2015 to 2017. (Atlas executives are making slightly less after a massive payout from their nonequity incentive plan.)

source

Hollis Johnson/Defence Online

Pilots claim the airlines were having difficulty finding new hires, even as Amazon demanded more flights

Eleven of the pilots Business Insider spoke with had been with Atlas and ATSG for more than a decade. Each told Defence Online that the airlines were having difficulty finding new hires, even as Amazon demands more flights. The pilots coming to Atlas and ATSG today aren’t as experienced as the ones in the past, pilots said.

Kirchner said he was left speechless when flying one of Amazon’s new Prime Air planes with a new hire. They had just broken 30,000 feet when the “young fellow” turned to Kirchner.

“You know, Bob, this is the highest I’ve ever been as a pilot in any airplane at all,” the first officer said, according to Kirchner.

“I didn’t know what to say,” Kirchner told Defence Online in January. “You’re on a 747, the second-largest airplane in the world, and you’ve never been up here at this altitude.”

An ABX pilot with 23 years’ experience at the company said: “We have guys in the right seats [first-officer seats] who have no business flying airplanes, and certainly no business flying heavy jets.”

Ross Aimer, the CEO of AeroConsulting Experts, said “explosive growth” at Atlas and ATSG could be unsustainable and dampen safety standards at the two airlines.

“Atlas and ATSG are having a hard time finding experienced pilots,” Aimer, an aviation-consulting expert with 53 years in the industry, told Defence Online. “They’re not getting the right talent as fast as they’re expanding.”

ATSG sent Defence Online the following statement in response to a list of claims pilots made. They did not respond to each individual claim nor address questions relating to its business strategy:

ATSG has always been and will remain committed to the highest standards of safety throughout all of our operations. Our airlines are in compliance with the rules of their current Collective Bargaining Agreements, including day/night transition rules. Regarding staffing, ATSG has had no issues in finding qualified candidates to support its growth. Contract negotiations continue to be conducted under the auspices of the National Mediation Board, and we look forward to their satisfactory conclusion.

The 11 pilots said training standards have also eroded as Amazon’s business demands have increased and pressure mounts to onboard more pilots.

ABX has received at least two warnings from the Federal Aviation Administration for “a disruptive and confrontational atmosphere” during pilot-training sessions. One ABX pilot told Defence Online that ABX president David Soaper regularly came to training to “just babble and berate and try to scare the hell out of everybody.”

In the most recent incident, Soaper interrupted training to yell at crew members, one of whom walked out of training, according to a letter the FAA sent ABX that Defence Online received through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“This letter serves as an additional reminder that ABXA should keep training environments free of distractions,” Lawrence Ward, the principal operations inspector at the FAA’s East Michigan unit, wrote in a February 20, 2018, letter to Soaper. “This should include the avoidance of controversial topics by instructors and speakers.”

ATSG, the parent company for ABX, did not respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Many of the pilots shared stories of flights that they thought could have become dangerous

Nearly all the pilots with whom we spoke shared stories of flights they experienced where they felt it could have become dangerous. ABX Capt. Stephen Page, who retired in February after 26 years at the airline, said a first officer he flew with in the last year “wiped the power,” or took off the throttles and decreased the power at 100 feet, a technique not advised in large cargo jets.

“It was like he was flying his father’s Cessna around the cabbage patch,” Page told Business Insider. “Everyone who knows anything about swept-wing jets, you don’t do that. You fly that aircraft to the runway; otherwise, you can have really catastrophic results.”

Page quickly took control of the aircraft. He decided to train the first officer in landing the day after, but a similar incident arose. “It was just a total cluster,” Page said.

ATSG, the parent company for ABX, did not respond to a request for comment on Page’s comments.

source

Mark Makela/Reuters

An Atlas Air pilot, who has been with the company for 20 years, said his safety concerns were so strong that he doesn’t feel comfortable sleeping during international flights when he’s flying with pilots he thinks were “pushed” through training.

“I will not go in the back, or if I go in the back I won’t go in the bunk, I’ll stay up in the seat, I’ll take little catnaps,” he said. “I don’t rest very well because you’re looking to make sure everything is OK.”

Asked how he gets through those long flights, the pilot responded, “Lots of coffee.”

Exhausted pilots are fueling Amazon’s delivery aspirations

All but one pilot said they experienced forced overtime and fatigue while employed at Atlas Air and ATSG. The one pilot who said he had not experienced forced overtime joined Atlas less than three years ago.

“The problems predate Amazon, but Amazon created such a rapid expansion with 20 airplanes, plus a lot of the airplanes that they were getting for other customers, have just amplified the situation,” Kirchner said. “These 20 airplanes that were flying for Amazon really put them under more stress to keep hiring and hiring.”

Under FAA safety laws, pilots cannot work more than 290 hours a month and cannot exceed 100 hours a month in flight time. But it’s not exactly a 25-hour workweek; pilots often spend downtime at hotels or airports waiting for their next job or have to commute by flying to other airports.

Some pilots, particularly those who work for prestigious airlines like Delta or Southwest, are able to spend a lot of their time at home, while others – including Amazon Air pilots – might go weeks or even months without getting back to their families.

Amazon Air pilots with whom we spoke said they don’t have a set schedule and, because of the lack of workers, they’re often asked just hours before flights to come into work, on days they’d scheduled off. One pilot told Defence Online he was offered four days’ overtime pay to fly a two-hour flight. The catch was that it was on a Saturday, and he’d have to fly to and from the job instead of spending his weekend with his children.

Further, cargo pilots don’t have the same rest periods that passenger pilots have. Under safety laws that came into effect in 2014, passenger pilots are allocated 10-hour rest breaks between trips, which allow them to get at least eight hours’ sleep, but cargo pilots only have eight hours between trips.

That’s what cargo pilots call the “cargo carve-out” – rest-break rules that cargo pilots have been carved out of and can’t benefit from.

“Cargo aircraft and the operations around cargo aircraft are second class citizens in the FAA, and many times have been treated as second class citizens by their operators,” Hall, the former NTSB head, said.

“The fact of the matter is, because they’re very few souls aboard, they do not get the media attention or the regulatory action that a commercial aircraft does,” Hall added. “And that’s regrettable. They’re a very important part of our commercial aviation operations in the country.”

And Amazon Air operates during the day, the pilots told Defence Online, even as most cargo airlines operate at night. Since ATSG and Atlas also service DHL and other customers, they sometimes find themselves shuffling their circadian rhythm around.

One pilot said that fatigue calls, in which pilots can call their employer and tell them they are too tired to safely work, have peaked in the past 1 1/2 years because of the nighttime flying. He said it’s common to have a week of normal daytime flying capped off with a red-eye. “Your body is completely on the opposite side of the clock,” he said.

“We’re staying up all night and then flying over your house the next day,” an ABX pilot with 23 years’ experience told Defence Online.

“It allows Amazon as well as ABX to get more productivity out of the airplanes,” that same pilot added in a later interview. “It also, unfortunately, allows them to get more productivity out of you – your circadian rhythm be damned.”

source

Hollis Johnson/Samantha Lee/Defence Online

Forced overtime, which pilots say has decreased in the past year, hurt ABX pilots in ways beyond their work productivity and morale. One ABX pilot said he was sometimes gone for two months at a time during 2016 and 2017.

“I’m going through a divorce, and I attribute that 100% to the way our flying schedules have changed,” the pilot told Defence Online. “They wouldn’t let us go home.”

Capt. Tim Jewell, an ABX pilot who has been with the company for 25 years and is the secretary treasurer of Teamsters Local 1224, said the forced overtime caused unrest in his personal life too. He said he missed birthdays of his grandchildren and important school functions and games.

“It almost more affects your family members than it affects yourself, because your family counts on you to be there for certain things,” Jewell told Defence Online. “You keep telling them, ‘Well, I don’t know, don’t plan this, I may be there, I may not,’ and so forth and so on.”

Above all, morale at both ABX and Atlas have plummeted. One Atlas pilot said he routinely has to ensure his coworkers are mentally sound enough to work. “Pilots show up and they’re so disturbed I have to pull them aside,” he said.

Lower pilot pay is helping Amazon keep its air venture economical

Pilots are almost universally unionized. Even pilots at FedEx, whose labor force is not completely unionized, are in a union. Meanwhile, an ongoing pilot shortage has forced airlines across the spectrum to raise wages. “In the last two to three years, we’ve seen really significant salary increases,” Bob Seidel, the chief executive of Alerion Aviation, previously told Business Insider. “People are desperate to keep their airplanes staffed.”

But ATSG and Atlas Air pilots earn considerably less than their peers flying the same planes with the same years of experience at other companies. According to their union contracts, ABX and Atlas Air pilots have not received a raise in nearly a decade.

The union contracts at ABX and Atlas have been amenable since 2015, meaning they are still in effect but available to be negotiated. Negotiations, which are reaching their fifth year, have been challenging, according to each pilot Defence Online spoke with. Pilot union negotiations are often lengthy – FedEx’s most recent pilot labor negotiations lasted two years, while UPS’ went on for 3 1/2 years.

However, the ABX and Atlas contracts now in place were negotiated during the financial crisis, and pilots said the contract was “concessionary” in many ways. They allowed their pensions and healthcare matches to freeze, gave up vacation days, and took a pay cut. Pilots said that was to save the airlines, which were financially struggling. Atlas Air had declared bankruptcy several years prior.

source

Airplane Pilot Central; Andy Kiersz/Defence Online

Boeing 767 captains with the maximum years of company tenure at ATSG and Atlas now earn up to $246 an hour.

Those captains with the same credentials earn $313 an hour at FedEx and $309 at UPS. Even smaller cargo airlines, like Kalitta Air, pay better than ATSG or Atlas. Kalitta 767 captains earn $273.

Even a first-year captain at FedEx earns more than a captain at Amazon Air who has been with the company for decades ($258 an hour at FedEx).

So, the average Amazon Air captain makes about 33% less than the average FedEx and UPS captain for flying the same plane once reaching the maximum years of experience. (Maximum experience at UPS and FedEx is 15 years, while it’s capped at 12 years at Kalitta, Atlas, ABX, and ATI.)

“You have a bunch of pilots that were not happy to begin with, and now you see the company willfully and intentionally disenfranchising them and trying to basically crush or limit their careers going forward,” Wells, the president of Teamsters Local 1224, said. “And that’s never a good environment to work in, especially with pilots or with the kind of work that we do.”

source

Airplane Pilot Central; Andy Kiersz/Defence Online

“This is another headache that Amazon just doesn’t want, and why they don’t want to get into the airline business,” Kevin Sterling, the managing director of Seaport Global Securities, told Defence Online. His theory is that “there’s no way around unions in airlines, which is why Amazon will continue to outsource this function.”

Outsourcing pilot labor to low-wage airliners is part of Amazon’s strategy to keep its ever-increasing shipping costs low. Amazon’s worldwide shipping costs have grown fifteenfold from 2009 to 2018. Net sales increased by sevenfold in the same time.

“Amazon is doing everything possible to keep their shipping expense low because it’s ballooning,” Marc Wulfraat, the president and founder of supply-chain consultancy MWPVL International, told Defence Online.

source

SEC filings; Andy Kiersz/Defence Online

To keep Amazon as a customer, the pressure is high on Atlas and ATSG to keep labor costs minimal. (Amazon recently hit the headlines for ditching another third-party logistics company.)

Read more: One of America’s biggest trucking companies says it will lose out on $600 million in revenues this year, and it looks like Amazon is to blame

It could be that cheap labor is the key thing keeping Amazon’s air venture affordable. David Vernon, a Bernstein senior analyst and vice president, wrote in a December note that Amazon pilots’ low wages allowed Amazon to carry goods more cheaply than UPS and FedEx airport to airport.

But Amazon Air has problems with crew scheduling and operations “dis-synergies.” So Amazon Air’s service is ultimately much more expensive than that of UPS or FedEx when looking door to door.

source

Bernstein; Andy Kiersz/Defence Online

“Pilot pay at low-cost charter operations is lower, creating a cost advantage for Prime Air in airport-to-airport service – this does not mean, however, that they can deliver a 2-day box door-to-door cheaper than a commercial operator,” Vernon wrote.

Service disruptions – meaning delayed packages – may be next

So far, the paucity of pilots has not caused a major issue for Amazon.

Satish Jindel, a supply-chain expert and SJ Consulting Group’s principal consultant, said ATSG and Atlas have maintained their services; the two airlines also fly for big-name customers like DHL and the US military. But every pilot Defence Online spoke with said they suspect service disruptions are almost definitely coming.

ABX pilots already went on strike in late 2016, though that was quickly struck down. The 200-plus pilots were ordered back to work when a judge said the matter needed to be resolved through arbitration and under the terms of the labor agreement between ABX and their union. Continued disruptions could cause issues for Amazon’s plan to overhaul airfreight, Wulfraat said.

“If it ends up that the service level becomes inconsistent because you can’t find the labor to fly the planes and you’re constantly having labor-disruption issues, that’s going to have a direct impact on their ability to provide that two-day delivery,” Wulfraat said.

“At some point in time, if you’re moving such a great percentage of your outbound volume into this transportation channel, then you’re going to have a regular supplier, consistent supplier capabilities, to do the delivery,” he added. “This could potentially have big disruptive impacts on Amazon’s ability to deliver product to customers unless they figure out how to deal with this issue.”

“You have a whole bunch of morale issues,” one Atlas pilot who spoke on condition of anonymity said. “Guys are getting tired; they’re getting sick. There’s a lot of stress involved in it, too, because they’re pushing everyone to their limit. When you do that, especially at these very safety-sensitive jobs, most guys are going to err to safety, which means that something is not going to move at some point. It’s a matter of time before stuff stops moving or stops moving with any consistency.

“Right now, they’re barely keeping it together,” the person said. “And when I say ‘barely,’ it’s right there. They’re going to run out of people.”

Áine Cain contributed reporting.

Are you an insider with a story about Amazon? Contact me at rpremack@businessinsider.com.

The post An Amazon Air plane crashed in February, killing all 3 people on board. Weeks earlier, several pilots said they thought an accident was inevitable., Defence Online appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/03/21/an-amazon-air-plane-crashed-in-february-killing-all-3-people-on-board-weeks-earlier-several-pilots-said-they-thought-an-accident-was-inevitable-defence-online/

[pogueman]

David Pogue's search for the world's best air-travel app

This month, Expedia (EXPE) killed off the world’s best app for air travelers: FlightTrack Pro, which it had bought in 2010. (Why do companies do that!?)

Among frequent flyers, cries of mourning fill the airspace.

I’m among them. FlightTrack Pro was amazing. Here’s how I described it back in 2009:

Its attractive, tidy screens show you far more detail than the airline generally provides—not just the departure and arrival times, but also the terminals, gates, flight maps, aircraft type, speed and altitude, weather radar, and so on.

The Pro version costs $10. It’s worth every penny, because it offers “push” alerts when anything changes. That is, your iPhone [or Android phone] buzzes and wakes up and, no matter what you were doing, shows on the screen the details of your flight’s delay, gate change, or whatever.

FlightTrack Pro, dead at ate 8.

I’ll never forget the first time FTP blew my mind. I was with a TV crew for a layover at Chicago O’Hare. The airport monitor said our connecting flight was at gate D6, but the app said it was gate B3, only 50 yards away. The crew insisted that the monitor was correct, and went off D6. I stayed put.

Fifteen minutes later, they sheepishly returned. FlightTrack Pro had been right.

Then there was the time in Dallas when the gate agent announced a fog delay; she said she didn’t know how long it would last. Well, I did! FTP said it would be 45 minutes—and it was!

Considering how much time, trouble, and money this little app saves travelers, it was beyond forehead-smacking that Expedia killed it off.

Now, FlightTrack was around for eight years. Surely, in that time, something similar has come along? I decided to find out.

Today’s flight apps can access real-time FAA databases, to your benefit.

(Note: The following review covers apps that manage flights for travelers. Other apps, like FlightAware, are designed to reveal details about one particular plane in the air; others, like FlightRadar24 and Planes Live, show you all planes in the air. But those are really a different deal.)

(Other note: All of the following apps are available for iPhone and Android.)

What made FlightTrack so good?

Yes, of course, FTP showed terminal, gate, and baggage-claim information. Yes, it notified you in real time when your gate changed, or when a flight’s takeoff or landing time changed.

But it also offered all of these features:

Automated data entry. Truth to tell, FTP wasn’t so great when it came to manually entering your flights. You had to tap in the airline, flight number, and date, and then search for a match, and then tap the match. Too many steps. Until version 5, though, it spared savvy travelers that effort because it synced with Tripit.com. That’s an ingenious free service that builds a tidy itinerary for you—all you have to do is forward your travel receipts to Tripit’s e-mail address (plans@tripit.com). So when you buy a ticket online (Travelocity.com, an airline, or whatever), you forward it to Tripit, and boom—the flight was wirelessly auto-entered on your calendar, and also in FlightTrack.

Layover calculations. Such a little thing, but so valuable: You could glance at the app to see how much time you’d have in the connecting city.

Delay history. FTP even knew the on-time history of your flight. It would let you know that, for example, this flight is over 45 minutes late 33% of the time, so you could manage your expectations.

Aircraft details, including seating charts and WiFi information. For example, you’d know that you’d be sitting right by the bathroom.

In-flight details, like speed, altitude, and a real-time map showing the plane en route.

Airport details, like the weather, current airport delays, and terminal maps.

Alternate flights. When yours is canceled, you want to be able to see what else is available with a single tap.

Info sharing, so you can email or text the flight information to family, friends, or whoever’s picking you up.

Is there an app that offers all of that—in a well-designed, attractive package?

As it turns out, yes.

Here are the leading contenders, listed from worst to first.

FlightStats (free)

Attractive, with easy navigation; but feature-poor and loaded with ads. (At one time, you could pay $2 for an ad-free version; no longer.)

Missing features: 1 (automated data entry), 2 (layover calculations), 4 (plane info), 7 (alternate flights), 8 (send info).

Flight Stats. Good-looking but loaded with ads.

FlightHero (Free with ads, $10 without)

Not a bad attempt! Syncs with Tripit, adds flights to your calendar, offers easily accessible maps for airports, seating, and flights.

But the master flight list has tiny, eye-deadening type (below, left). Some features are completely broken (like the “flight boards” for your airports and the Radar). And the ad-laden version is almost unusable.

Missing features: 2 (layover calculations), 3 (delay history), 7 (alternate flights)

Flight Hero. A few broken and missing features.

TripCase (Free)

To record your flights (and hotel and car reservations) in this app, you can forward your confirmation emails either to trips@tripcasecom or to Tripit, which is great. Also excellent: Buttons for plane layout, alternate flights, and directions to the airport appear right there under the name of your fight, so you don’t have to hunt.

The app bends over backward to give you the information you’ll want, in the places you’ll want it—even information about the city you’re visiting. Unfortunately, the good info is interspersed with commercial items. On the main screen for every flight, for example, you have the opportunity to “Find a great audiobook before your flight” or buy luggage insurance (below, right).

Sure, they have to pay for this free app somehow—but I’d rather pay a few bucks to get rid of the ads.

Missing features: 2 (layover calculations), 3 (delay history), 5 (flight details).

TripCase. Clear, complete, and ad-pocked.

The FlightTracker (Free with ads, or $4 without)

This app (formerly called Flight+) really packs in the features—not only can you see the seating chart for your flight, but you even get a photo and writeup of the aircraft. There’s Tripit integration, copious data on airports and airlines, current weather, and much more.

My one gripe is the design. There are tabs across the bottom, a menu at top left, and some kind of overlapping-card interface for the main screen. It makes sense after awhile, but your first few days will leave you scratching your head, and it takes a lot of taps.

Missing features: 3 (delay history).

The Flight Tracker. Rich with features, hard to navigate.

FlightView (free with ads, $2 without)

This app gets off to a great start with its own built-in version of Tripit: You can forward email flight confirmations to trips@flightview.com, and BOOM—that flight is now listed in the app, with all details.

The design is clear, weather delays at specific airports are colorfully represented, and offering a tile for your home airport—showing weather and delay status—is a great touch.

There’s also a $4 version, FlightView Elite, which adds a super-cool “Flight board”: a list of all incoming and outgoing flights for a certain airport, just like you’d see on the monitors there. Great for finding alternate flights.

Missing features: 2 (layover calculations), 3 (delay history), 4 (plane info), 7 (alternate flights).

Flight View. Great app—but missing a few key features.

Flight Update Pro ($10)

This app offers features 1 through 8, making it one of the most complete apps in the air. It starts with Tripit integration, so you don’t have to enter your flights manually—but if you do enter your flights manually, airline logos and national flags make the process quick and easy. And once you’ve entered a flight, the app can add it to your calendar automatically.

A few app-store reviewers gripe that you must first define a trip, and then add flights to it. As a result, your list of upcoming flights is grouped by trip, instead of being just a continuous list of flights. I prefer it listed by trip, actually (below, left).

Flight Update Pro. Every feature you can think of.

Once the app has received aircraft details for your flight—which doesn’t happen until the departure is imminent—you can open a map of the seats (data courtesy of SeatGuru), find out what amenities (like WiFi) are offered, read about the aircraft, and even see photos taken inside it. In-flight details include airspeed, altitude, time remaining, and, of course, a map. You can specify exactly which kinds of notifications you want to receive (Gate changes? Landed? 1, 2, 3, 4, or 8 hours before departure?).

Overall, it seems clear that Flight Update Pro is indeed the rightful heir to FlightTrack Pro—not identical, but damn close, and superior in some ways. The developer says that an even better version is coming next month.

Missing features: None.

A wonderland of detail.

App in the Air

This app is eyebrow-raisingly complete, customizable, and expensive. Frequent flyers online either love it (because it’s so rich) or despise it (because it’s got more than they need).

The free version will make you crazy, it’s so full of ads and come-ons to upgrade. You can pay $2 to get rid of the ads, but important features still don’t work until you “subscribe.” And subscribing costs $3.50 a month, $30 a year, or $50 for life.

That’s right. This is a $50 app. Well, beyond a good punny name (“App in the Air,” get it?), what on earth could $50 get you?

For starters, real time savings on data entry. This app connects to Tripit, of course, and also has its own email “forward confirmations to me” address (myflight@appintheair.mobi). But it can also scan your Inbox, looking for travel receipts to parse automatically. (That works with Outlook, Windows Live, Google, Yahoo Mail, iCloud, or any other IMAP account.) It can grab travel details from your calendar, too.

Incredibly, this app can receive notifications about gate changes and flight delays even when you’re abroad without an internet connection; it receives this data via text messages.

App in the Air: A towering, very expensive achievement.

You can read tips about airports (where to get the best food, etc.) left by other frequent fliers. There’s an Apple Watch app, too.

And the record-keeping module is unbelievable—something you won’t find in any other app. It tracks how many flights, miles, and hours in the air you’ve spent in planes—keeps a list of the airports, countries, and airlines you’ve hit. I was aghast to see my lifetime accumulation of flight hours.

Each flight presents a scrolling list of tiles, or widgets, containing details like the flight map, current security-line times at the airport, airline contact information, packing checklist, hotel information, rental-car details, and so on. You get to choose which of these tiles appears (above, right).

Your world of airports and planes, at your fingertips.

But here’s the most mind-blowing part: If you’ve paid up, this app can even check you in automatically. To set this up, you enter the confirmation code for your reservation, specify aisle/middle/window, and confirm your passport or license number; the rest is automatic. As soon as your flight opens for check-in, the app does it automatically.

Each auto-check-in saves you a bunch of taps in your airline’s app—and another thing to remember to do. This is a killer feature in a killer app.

At $50, it’s safe to say that this is an app for the ridiculously frequent flyer—say, someone who flies every week.

Missing features: None.

Grieve no more

So there you go, mourners.

FlightTrack is dead. Long live FlightView, Flight Update Pro, and App in the Air!

More from David Pogue:

David Pogue tested 47 pill-reminder apps to find the best one

The little-known iPhone feature that lets blind people see with their fingers

I paid $3,000 for my MacBook Pro and got emotional whiplash

Here’s the real money-maker for the Internet of Things

David Pogue, tech columnist for Yahoo Finance, welcomes non-toxic comments in the Comments below. On the web, he’s davidpogue.com. On Twitter, he’s @pogue. On email, he’s poguester@yahoo.com. You can read all his articles here, or you can sign up to get his columns by email.