The fall of a Mexican-American Star and her ill-fated aircraft

On December 9, 2012, Mexican-American singer Jenni Rivera perished, along with her staff, in an air crash south of Monterrey, Mexico. This crash was sudden and impacted many people in the Latin American community because of her music and tragic circumstances. Because of the sudden and tragic circumstances of this accident, many news sites and individuals in social media were desperate for answers regarding her death. The rumours started swimming around over the aircraft being sabotaged or shot down by cartel leaders in Mexico. Others linked this accident to the politically charged incidents where two Mexican Secretaries of State died in air crashes during the regime of president Felipe Calderon. But two things did catch the attention of the individuals, the pilot and the aircraft’s age.

Many individuals started berating the age of Ms. Rivera’s aircraft. Many wondered why would anyone ride in an aircraft that is four decades old. There are bloggers, which I will not name, that went on a rant on the fact that Jenni's ill-fated aircraft was a 43 year old Learjet. And there are individuals within the aviation community concerned about the age of the aircraft. An article on CNN had an both sides of the story regarding the age of the aircraft. But John McGraw, ex-deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stated, ‘However -- on its own -- age is not anindicator of an airplane's safety.’ I remember an adage stating that an aircraft can fly forever as long as you give it proper maintenance. Many Learjets, especially the Learjet 35, have a very long lifespan given by its manufacturer and can fly as long as it is airworthy under FAA standards. Here are some examples of old flyable aircraft:

 Clockwise from the left is a de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver. This aircraft was one of the first to fly precious cargo out to the wilderness of Canada and Alaska. Lifelines relied on this aircraft to ferry cargo out to the isolated settlements in these regions. Next is the Antonov 2. This is another rugged aircraft that was used for everything, including, agricultural sprayer, bomber, and special forces transport. This aircraft entered production in 1947 in the USSR and continues to fly today. The last aircraft in these images is a DC-3. This aircraft was one of the first airliners (it was also the C-47, the more famous transport of World War II including inserting the 101st airborne into Northern Europe and flying cargo over the ‘hump’ in the Himalayas) in the world. This aircraft continues to fly today for charter cargo companies and air tours around the world. Here are a few military examples:

From clockwise on the left: the B-52 is one of the primary bombers of the United States Air Force and has served the United States for 57 years. The Tupolev Tu-95 bomber is the Russian counterpart to the B-52 and also survived many of its replacements in its 56 year of service. The problem with older aircraft is that it becomes more expensive to repair due to lack of parts (and rise of prices due to this) and more constant need for repairs. Most of the military aircraft here are old but many of its vital components have been replaced with newer parts. One cannot compare the age decay of an aircraft to that of an automobile.

The same thing goes for aircraft that survived an incident or crash. Many aircraft suffer incidents throughout their life spans (such as crumpled landing gear, damaged vertical stabilizer, uncontrollable exploding engine, etc.) but can be deemed airworthy and repaired to flying condition. This aircraft was involved in an incident in 2005. It is a vehicle like a car, and it can be repaired to work again. One thing to note is that the nations where popular aircraft reside have strict laws and standards in making an aircraft. Redundancies in vital systems, high quality construction material, and designs that are tried and true from experienced aircraft makers and, tragically, lessons from air accidents. This results in sturdy and sometimes rugged aircraft. The reason air crashes become prominent in the news is because of the quick way an aircraft crashes into the Earth and the devastating landscape of a crash site. And I cannot fathom how many times people would bat an eye to headlines similar to ‘CAR RUNS OFF ROAD, ENTIRE FAMILY KILLED.’

As for the crash itself, it is too early to tell what brought it down. A proper investigation required chemical analysis (to cross out possibility of explosive or anti-air missile), analysis of aircraft parts to look for possible metal fatigue, air traffic audio tapes and radar data (since the aircraft did not carry an onboard data recorder), and all available maintenance records and interviews of mechanics leading up to, at least, a year. Every accident starts with everything being a possible cause and it is a tedious detective work to sum it up to one or a few causes leading to the crash.

The preliminary data available suggests that the aircraft suffered a loss of control at 28,000 feet.  Now, an old aircraft works like any car. Each one has its flying twitches and unique characteristics (like it slowly rolling to the right as a car would slowly steer to the right in a straight road). This is why it is good to have the same pilot flying the same aircraft as the pilot is used to these characteristics and knows how to correct them in flight. The aircraft could have possibly rolled to the left or right. Perhaps a turbulent bump in the air exaggerated that flight characteristic, caught the pilot off guard, and caused the aircraft to dive uncontrollably into the ground. I honestly don’t know. I don’t have access to the flight records or investigation data.

Here is an article from the Smithsonian Institute regarding a plane’s age and how to check its airworthiness with nondestructive evaluation.

Here is a link (in Spanish) of a press release from the Secretary of Communications and Transportation regarding the crash.

Images obtained from Wikimedia Commons

A Jubilee for the Airbus' Workhorse: the A320

On February 22, 1987, a legend took to the air for the first time. It was not the fanciest western fighter jet with the fastest speed or newest gadgets. It was not the largest transport to defy gravity and lumber into the air. It was a homely looking airliner, which would place Europe on the pinnacle of commercial aviation, start up a new generation of pilots and passengers who prefer to fly with the comforts of the newest gadgets; such as mood lighting, and computer managing systems.

"What, no steering column? Fighter jet-like control sticks?! Awesome!"

It was one of the first airliners to take into consideration the ergonomics of the pilots themselves. It was also the first airliner to fly with digital fly-by-wire technology (meaning the controls in the cockpit are managed digitally to machines that control the surface of the aircraft rather than pulleys directly connected to the cockpit). This aircraft was developed with the technology and ideas that pushed the threshold of commercial aviation. And most importantly, it gave the American dynasty of airliners (built by McDonnell Douglas and the Boeing Company) a run for their money. European airlines finally had a reliable airliner that has proximate access to its engineers and parts.

At the time, there were only a few aircraft that were being built to transport passengers between short and medium routes: The Boeing 737 series, the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 series, the Fokker (quit snickering, I bet you also chuckle at a can of Heinz Spotted Dick). 70, the Fokker 100, and the Tupolev Tu-154M. Before anyone asks, I am solely including aircraft that can do short AND medium range routes built around the 1980s. The British Aerospace 146 series, the de Havilland Canada Dash 8 series, the Embraer 120, the Fokker 50, and the Antonov An-74.

For the record, I am a Boeing fan, just like I like Coca-Cola over Pepsi-Cola, or personal computers over Apple Inc. hardware. My preference has been for the Seattle, Washington based company. There are exceptions, however, as I believe that some Airbus aircraft a superbly brilliant. Their first aircraft, the A300, revolutionized the aviation industry by showing that medium and long range aircraft can run more efficiently on two engines. Or the Airbus A340-300, which showed that an airline can fly passengers on long range routes with the engines of smaller jetliners (the CFM-56 engines that power the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320), Or the A330, which show that beauty can go hand in hand with designing Spartan efficiency. 

But there is something to respect about the interesting design of the Airbus A320. It was the first airliner to rely more on the computer than the pilot. Before this specific aircraft, the priority of the airliner workload depended on the pilots with the electronics assisting them. But Airbus went the opposite direction, believing that technology was finally capable of commanding the majority of controls of the aircraft, with the pilot ensuring that all goes well. It revolutionized the commercial aviation industry but also polarized it as well. Many pilots and airline managers favored relying on the experience and capabilities of the pilot and hated this concept. This made them turn towards airliner manufacturers like the Boeing Company. Other pilots and airline managers, meanwhile, loved this concept and flew this aircraft. This polarization grew in strength when other airline companies, like Fokker and McDonnell Douglas, folded and left the medium range market with two workhorses, the Boeing 737 (with the New Generation series like the -600, -700, -800, and -900) and the Airbus A320 series (with a variety of sizes ranging from the smallest, the A318, the smaller, the A319, and the biggest of the series, the A321).

There were some problems with pilots embracing and working with the new technology. One of the finer examples was when a pilot miscalculated the capabilities of the A320 computer and crash landed it when it flew on autopilot into the trees during one of its first flights.

Air France flight 296...I have a blog post déjà vu sensation. As if I had already written about this before.

But the airliner worked. It flew with famous airlines, was the first airliner of a start-up company, or was the final aircraft on a doomed airline.

And yet, few people knew Braniff flew A320s. Or worse yet, few remember or know of the existence of Braniff International Airways

In fact, some make headline news:

Miracle on the Hudson River: US Airways flight 1549

Whatever the case, the Airbus A320 has had a marvelous 25 years of flight. Here is to another 25 years.

Image Credits:
Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/

The Legacy Of The Plane That Hit The North Tower

A decade has passed since the day that brought horror and shock to the majority of the world. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 shattered the innocence of various generations, militarized the common thought in this nation, and gave the world a new nightmare.

Worst of all, two of the airliners used in the terrorist attacks are symbols of US aeronautical design: the Boeing 767. The aircraft involved with United flight 175 had an exemplary service record. It was one of the first 767s to take to the air in the early months of 1983. It also served United Airlines for seventeen years and almost reached retirement age where it not for the tragic circumstance in 2001.

Aircraft N612UA at (Above image) San Diego April of 1983 and (Right image) at Boston in April of 2000.

The age of this aircraft is significant as the average airliner flies for twenty years before being scrapped for Coca-Cola cans or bought second hand in less economical nations. The thing about this aircraft, however, is how it is also a symbol of diversity. Very few nations in this world did not have a 767 flying in their skies. Most airlines around the world could not afford to fly the Boeing 767, especially since it helped revolutionize a new era of air travel. This aircraft brought a new wave of twin-engine aircraft ferrying passengers to every part of the globe. One of the aircraft that came along with the 767 was the thin fuselage Boeing 757, which was the second aircraft used for the terrorist attacks in 2001.

In the 1970s, airlines believed that three engine aircraft were perfect to haul passengers from one part of a nation to another. Many aircraft followed the concept of adding more engines to provide more power. The Jumbo Jet had four engines; most medium sized aircraft had three engines. The political fallout of the Yom Kippur War, however, left the western world in an oil crisis that shocked the airline industry. Deregulation of airlines in the United States, in 1978, allowed cutthroat competition to exist between airlines. Three engines no longer seemed beneficial for carrying people in short or medium flights. An upcoming European company, Airbus Industries, devised a twin-engine aircraft to satisfy the needs for a fuel-efficient medium range airliner. The Airbus A300 was innovative and brought a new era to the airline industry. Not to be outdone, the Boeing Company also launched a twin-engine jumbo, the 767. Boeing developed this aircraft in the late 1970s, and delivered to its first customer, United Airlines, in August of 1982.

The interesting thing about the 767 is contrary to its involvement in the terrorist attacks. This aircraft was a symbol of the convergence of cultures, rather than the division of them. United States aeronautical engineers designed and built this aircraft and the Boeing 767 became the workhorse of the airline industry in this country. Then terrorists used this aircraft as part of a symbolic attack on US ideals and thought. Yet, many cultures and nations, including many states in the Middle East, use the 767 as the workhorse of their fleets. Many languages are found written on the side of these airliners:

English

Spanish

Japanese

Irish

Arabic

Hebrew

Cyrillic (Russian)

and Mandarin (Chinese).


Adversaries and allies alike use the Boeing 767. In fact, do not be surprised if Iran Air, despite its anti-American rhetoric, will purchase/lease a second hand 767s to aid their aging fleet. The 767 exemplifies the diversity in this world. Different cultures are willing to fly a US jet in order to bring their people the creature comforts of air transportation.

There are two lessons about the legacy of the 767 during the attacks on September 11, 2001:

1. Acts of terrorism, no matter which ideals fuel them, rarely go unpunished.

2. If US corporations are willing to delve into multiculturalism in order to profit, then the population around the world must embrace the different cultures, races, and languages that exist on Earth. The global tensions in this new millennium and increasing globalism exasperate the need to understand and coexist with other people on this planet. If we fail to do so...well...history does have a nasty habit of repeating itself.

Image Credits:
Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Airliners.net: http://www.airliners.net/
Berlin Spotter (Image of the Aeroflot 767): http://www.berlin-spotter.de/focus/boeing767.htm

Initial Findings on Air France Flight 447

It has been almost two long years since I last posted on this blog. Many things have happened since then. However, this blog still lives and will continue to provide a bit of aviation history. Yesterday, the French accident investigation bureau (BEA) announced their initial findings on the crash of Air France flight 447 over the Atlantic Ocean in 2009. This came about after a salvage operation found the wreckage in 2011. The Airbus A330-200 was flying in nasty weather at the time of the crash. The findings today coincide with a theory many pilots and aviation analysts have long predicted the failure of the pitot tubes. Now the findings show that the pilots had faulty speed-readings that led to a loss of speed and an unrecoverable stall. This meant that the aircraft was flying too slow to provide lift on its wings and lost the ability to fly. An aircraft flies not from the wind that pushed below the wing, but the wind that pulls the aircraft above the wing (also known as the Bernoulli principle).


Example of a disruption of lift over the aircraft's wings.

But the mystery of Flight 447 goes deeper because the aircraft fell from 35,000 feet and crashed on its belly into the ocean. Stall recovery is one of the basic lessons pilots learn. In order to get lift again, the aircraft has to dive in order to gain speed and air above its wings. However, the initial findings show that the pilots did the opposite and pulled up. The action by the Air France pilots coincides with the most recent accident in the United States of America. In February 12, 2009, Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed in the suburbs of Buffalo, New York. The aircraft was beginning to stall upon landing and the pilots pulled up, ensuring a stall would happen. The pilots, however, were responding to the aircraft automatically diving (a stall protection commonly found on modern airliners) so close to the ground and over-corrected. The problem with Colgan Air Flight 3407 was the safety failures of regional airlines in ensuring that their pilots are fully rested and apt to fly the aircraft. Pilot fatigue could have also played a part in the crash of Flight 447. There is still little information published by the BEA and it is too soon in their investigation to conclude, or rule out, to any failure. But the problem is that the pilots in Flight 447 were not rookies. These pilots climbed up the career ladder flying various airliners in order to become A330 pilots. It seems unreasonable that seasoned copilots would commit such an error in recovering from a stall.
Another issue is why Air France Flight 447 stalled in the first place. The reports state a failure on the pitot tubes during flight. Pitot tubes are small pressure tubes that absorb air and measure the airspeed of an aircraft. You might have seen the pitot tubes as an aircraft's 'whiskers.'



A Boeing 737's 'whiskers.'

Each aircraft carries at least two pitot tubes, one for each pilot and another working as backup. An aircraft does not crash because of a pitot tube failure, but by actions on the pilot and/or aircraft computers resulting from that failure. On February 6, 1996, Birgenair flight 301 crashed when a hornet made a nest in one of the pitot tubes. The difference between the measurements from the failed pitot tubes and functioning pitot tubes confused the aircraft computer, sending it into a frenzy that then confused the pilots when the aircraft entered into an unrecoverable stall. On October 2, 1996, Aeroperú Flight 603 had problems with the altitude measurements as soon as it took off. The computers sounded off alarms when it was unable to read the correct altitude, vertical speed, and airspeed. While trying to fly back to the airport in Lima, Peru, the aircraft struck one of its wingtips with the Pacific Ocean. The pilots were unable to recover the aircraft and it crashed twenty seconds after the wingtip strike. The problem was that the maintenance crews put masking tape over the static ports (part of the system connected to the pitot tube that measures altitude, airspeed, and vertical speed) during cleaning and forgot to remove the tape.
The initial findings on the accident state that the pitot tubes accumulated ice when it entered into the storm. The clouds in a storm look fluffy because of the dense amount of humidity within the clouds. These storm clouds have wind swiftly fly from the ground toward the sky, cooling the humidity in the clouds. This creates raindrops and ice at higher altitudes. The pitot tubes have heaters that melt the ice from building up within the tubes. Storms, however, generate too much ice to build up in the pitot tubes. The problem with Flight 447 was that there was a massive storm, hundreds of miles wide, blocking their flight toward Europe. Despite other flights safely flying through the storm, Flight 447 crashed in it.
The French government partially owns Airbus. This is why there is sneaking suspicion in BEA's haste to blame the pilots. Airbus designs their planes to fly on computers and sensors, relegating the pilot as a backup in case technology fails. This has caused a horrific scandal before. During the demonstration flight of the A320, the aircraft followed its autopilot in flying level...into the forest.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE
Kudos on the ironic message in the video commentary.

That was Air France flight 296. Both Airbus and the pilots were to blame in flight 296. The pilots came in too high and too fast and did not make a flyover to get familiar with the airport and its surroundings. However, Air France pressured the pilots to arrive at a certain time in an airport that was not familiar to the pilots. Airbus was at fault because they had a faulty auto throttle (the autopilot mechanism controlling the engine power) and the altitude measurements were not efficient. This is why the aircraft was flying too slow (not the angle of attack - the way the nose is pitched up high) and the engines went into full power after the aircraft dove into the forest. Despite only losing 3 lives in an aircraft with 136 people onboard, the penalties were harsh. The French government sided with Air France and Airbus and placed full blame on the pilot. The French courts convicted Captain Asseline and the rest of the crew of involuntary manslaughter, with the Captain serving time in prison. The stakes for Airbus is high as a failure in its computer system scares away passengers and clients. The latter is more frightening to Airbus because these clients can easily buy aircraft from its main competitor, the Boeing Company
The initial findings do not cover all of the factors leading to the crash of Air France 447. Nonetheless, Airbus already ordered all A330 owners to replace their pitot tubes and problems with the A330 are now being addressed. The most important thing about investigating air crashes is to find all of the flaws that caused the accident and fix them. This is one of the principle ways that flight becomes a safer way to travel.


Photo Credits:
Deep Stall image: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deep_stall.svg
Southwest Boeing 737 images: Airliners.net http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-3H4/1264077/L/&sid=569ca01fd21e5d382495cbdc4672b46c and http://www.airliners.net/photo/Southwest-Airlines/Boeing-737-3H4/0048011/L/&sid=569ca01fd21e5d382495cbdc4672b46c
Air France Flight 296 crash video: Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE
Air France Flight 296 image: Airdisaster.com http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/af296/2.shtml

Go Ugly Early: The ground attackers that are loved by soldiers and hated by generals

Go Ugly Early. In some forms of context, this means choosing the first or less prominent girl in a nightclub. However, to a military aviator this connotation takes on a whole different meaning. Whenever there is a need for an aircraft to attack a ground target, they usually send in a bird that is dedicated to ground attack. This usually means attack/bombers such as the A-10 or the AC-130.
[1]

As seen in these pictures, these are not the sleek and sexy aircraft you usually see in the movies or in the usual airplane posters. Seriously, look up F-22 or F-15 or find the usual posters jocks and teenage boys put up in their rooms and dorms. If these aircraft were people, they would be in reality shows such as 'Extreme Makeover.' These aircraft are also seen aviator's eyes as fugly little things. In fact, the own crew of these aircraft gave them aptly named nicknames to their looks. The A-10 Thunderbolt II is universally nicknamed the Warthog because of its resemblance to a warthog's head and its grunt when the A-10s gun is fired. In some aspects, it is also nicknamed the Devil's Cross because of its the similarities between its silhouette and the cross of the Russian Orthodox Church.
[2]

However, the AC-130 Spectre/Spooky doesn't have a nickname, because its name was already foul to begin with.

Despite all of this, these aircraft are beautiful in their own way. The A-10 was designed ugly because it was meant to take every bullet and missile in the Soviet or Ayatollahs arsenal, kill the baddie, and limp back bleeding like a sieve and missing parts. Kind of like John McClane with wings. The fuel tanks have a honeycomb infrastructure to hold onto its drink and not blow up if directly shot. The tail and engines are separated to allow the aircraft to continue flying if a tail or engine is shredded. The engine is a fuel efficient turbofan (the same type used to power the puddle jumpers (regional jets) you fly today) that allows the A-10 to loiter, or remain in the battlezone, for long periods of time. The cockpit is sort of bug-eyed to allow the pilot to see the battlefield in order to attack the baddies. The cockpit is also surrounded in the bottom with a titanium half-sphere and has strong bullet-proof glass in order to protect the pilot from ground fire. Heck, even the landing gear was made to provide a safe landing during the worst scenarios. The main (rear) wheels were housed without any cover in order to provide some stability during a belly landing. The pièce de résistance is the big GAU-8 gatling gun built within the aircraft.[3] This gun, the size of a Honda Civic if you include the magazine chamber and mechanisms, is capable of firing bullets that are meant to pierce tanks, reinforced walls, Transformers, Godzilla, Simon Cowell's ego, etc. etc. etc. Take in consideration that this airplane fires bullets as wide as 3cm long and 4 inches wide.[4]


The AC-130 is a funny little concept since the beginning. During the Vietnam War, an idea was conceived of adding rapid firing miniguns on an air transport. The transport would then go in circles above a fixed spot and fire on the baddies. This started by adding three miniguns to a C-47 (the military version of the propliner DC-3). The problem the gunships had were that they were big juicy targets for the enemy. This meant that the aircraft had to fly at night in order to use the darkness to their advantage. However, these aircraft were from the Second World War era and their age limited how much fire they could take. From this, the United States Air Force (Air Force) armed a C-119 (Korean War era cargo transport) which was a somewhat improvement over the C-47 and an incredible improvement on receiving bullets from Mr. Baddie. So the Air Force needed a sturdy and reliable aircraft to carry lots of guns. The C-130 Hercules was the aircraft of choice. entering service in the late 1950s, this aircraft was more refined as newer variants came into existence. A large aircraft with four turboprop engines, it was able to carry much more than the C-47 and the C-119 and take a beating by both its crew and baddies and make it home to be fixed with a hammer and duct tape. In fact, during combat the Hercules was able to take direct fire and continue firing. During the Falklands war, the Royal Navy pilot Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward had to use two missiles and his Harrier's guns to shoot down an Argentinian Hercules because of its durability and fire suppression system in its wings and engine.[5] This was the perfect aircraft to strap guns and have it fire directly on the baddies. With the A-Attack configuration in its name, this variant became the AC-130 Spectre. As the Vietnam War progressed, newer variants came about with the installation of a Bofors gun (basically a chain gun with the effect of creating explosive ammunition) and a howitzer gun. In essence, the Air Force installed a tank gun and explosive bullets on an aircraft. This proved successful in providing air cover and nightmares to the baddies.
[6]
Six Spectres were lost during the Vietnam War but destroyed around 10,000 trucks.[7] Think about it, most of the Vietnamese logistical division was annihilated and they only brought down six of their planes. During the Trouble in Paradise campaigns (Grenada and Panama), the Spectre managed to provide strong cover fire for the US troops and special forces below. During the first Gulf War, the Spectres provided a great burden to the Iraqi forces. A Spectre crew went beyond their call of duty to protect the Marines during a fierce firefight at the Battle of Khafji. However, they remained airborne as day came and an Iraqi soldier managed to use a portable missile to bring it down. It was later that another Spectre got its revenge. A Spectre named Azrael caught the massive Iraqi evacuation from Kuwait and mercilessly annihilated entire convoys despite being under fire.[8] Even during the Second Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan, the newer variants, the Spooky, are heavily relied on precision strikes against the terrorist baddies. They have also been used recently to support allied troops in restoring the government of Somalia. With all of their time in service, the AC-130 Spectre/Spooky has the distinction of never having a base under its protection lost to the enemy.[9] However, the Pentagon's generals (the top brass) were not that happy on its resources detracting from the high flying speed birds. They wanted the Air Force to focus on the sexy fighter jets and bombers in their fleet. Their spite towards ground attack aircraft culminated in the A-10.

The A-10 came on the scene as a consequence of the Vietnam War. Many military officers saw that the attack aircraft usually were blasted to bits by ground fire and needed lots of firepower to support the troops and kill the baddies. The leading aircraft to support in this role was the propellor driven A-1D Skyraider.
[10]
While this aircraft was able to fly low and slow to find and kill the baddies and was able to loiter for a while to support the troops; it was not built to withstand direct hits from enemy artillery and missiles. Sure the Skyraider could take lots of hits, but let a missile hit the plane or an anti-aircraft bullet hit the pilot and there goes the air support. So after the Vietnam War, the Air Force needed a plane that could fly low and slow, take a beating, protect the pilot, and have a good loiter time. However, some of the top brass wanted none of that. Many of them grew up with the Air Force composed of sleek and sexy fighter jets gracefully dogfighting very high in the sky. To go low and gritty with the ground combat was contradicting to the idea of flying high. Flying near the ground against ground forces was seen as a job for the Army. As the Air Force was obligated to provide all air support to both the combat theatre and the troops below, they were stuck with the A-10. This conflict continued through the eighties as the fighter jets, such as the Air Force's F-16, the Navy's F-18, and the Marine's AV-8 Harrier were capable of attacking ground forces. Despite this, many saw the potential of the A-10. Tom Clancy used his novel, Red Storm Rising, as one of the more realistic depictions of World War III between NATO and the Soviets. In this novel, the A-10 proved useful in eradicating tank batallions and providing lengthy cover for ground troops while taking enemy fire. This would ring true when the A-10 flourished in the first Gulf War. Here the Devil's Cross destroyed many Iraqi armor, provided lengthy cover for the Allied troops, got shot by a surface to air missile and made it back to base, and shot down a helicopter. Since then the A-10 has been accepted by the top brass as a superb aircraft and will continue to be so until its obligated retirement around 2028.

These aircraft are still not the first thing people think about when it comes to attack warplanes. Many kids and adults still dream about the F-22 and the F-18 when it comes to modern warplanes. However, the soldiers have always seen these aircraft as angelic when they came to their aid. There is no sweeter sound than the grunt of the gun and loud whistle of the Warthog or the sounds of incoming fire from the Spooky raining down on the enemy. So in the end, they aren't pretty, but Satan's Cross (as I like to call it) and the Spooky do their job and become saviors and brethren to the soldiers on the ground and provide the nightmares to the baddies. These aircraft literally bring the rain. And that's a lot more to say than what the F-22 Raptor can do.

[1]Wikipedia contributors, "A-10 Thunderbolt II," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A-10_Thunderbolt_II&oldid=335691841
This is a combination of an image of the A-10 from Wikipedia and an image of the AC-130 from my personal collection.
[2] Wikipedia contributors, "Russian Orthodox Church," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Orthodox_Church&oldid=335605918
The image is an image mix of a personal image with the image from this webpage.
[3] Wikipedia contributors, "A-10 Thunderbolt II," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A-10_Thunderbolt_II&oldid=334574747
Go ugly early usually has not had a strong influence with current wars, such as Afghanistan. This is because there was a greater need to send in a faster aircraft to respond to allies on the ground. This meant that the aircraft used were the sleeker looking F-16,F-15E, or the B-1B.
[4] Wikipedia contributors, "30 mm caliber," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=30_mm_caliber&oldid=332291059
[5] Philip Kaplan, Fly Navy: Naval Aviators and Carrier Aviation - A History (London: Aurum Press, 2001). 224
[6][7][8][9] Wikipedia contributors, "Lockheed AC-130," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_AC-130&oldid=333839304
[10] Wikipedia contributors, "A-1 Skyraider," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A-1_Skyraider&oldid=333989479

General Atomics Predator

Ok, maybe I was a bit harsh with my comments on the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) pilots and the UAVs itself in the U-2 blog. After much thought I realized that there was more to UAVs than being overgrown remote control planes. The reason for the apprehension comes from the traditional thought within aviators of the aircraft being controlled by a pilot within it. The thought of the pilot sitting behind a desk while their aircraft is airborne is seen as the sign of the end of times. It is a horrific thought to even ponder that aircraft can autonomously fly by themselves or be controlled by an armchair pilot. Nonetheless, the Predator has shown that it is a very capable and efficient aircraft through its combat service. It is also one of the most efficient and practical designs that can come out of aviation since, dare I say, the Douglas DC-3. It is imperative that I add the Predator into my blog before it becomes too cool for it. I also promised someone I would give a detailed look at one of General Atomics’ greatest creation.
Individuals who have recently purchased Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 have either faced the wrath of a Predator’s missile or have giggled at seeing their adversary’s last moments caught on the Predator’s infrared camera.


Moments before some hapless gamers curse at General Atomics for creating their flying assassin.

The Predator had an interesting history starting from spying on the Serbians debauchery in the Balkans and then on the Iraqis and Taliban before Uncle Sam decided to give it some six shooters to play with (in the form of Hellfire air to ground missiles and Stinger air to air missile). It’s a simple design because it has the sensors in front, the fuel in the long rectangular wings, and the light engine in the back. The aircraft is well balanced in weight in order to provide a fuel efficient flight and allows many of its components to be easily accessible for maintenance. Despite the stiff price and off the shelf technology it carries, the Predator is cheaper than a manned reconnaissance aircraft and uses the off the shelf technology to provide the advantage viewpoint of our soldiers below; that is unless the baddies also use off the shelf technology to get their unencrypted view of themselves from the Predator .
Nonetheless, the long wings allow it to glide in the air and maintain a low speed flight to loiter over a specific zone for many hours at a time, giving the soldiers on the ground and the Brass in the command centers the optimum view of the battlefront. The company that created the Predator has a curious history before their first UAV was created.
General Atomics began as an offshoot of General Dynamics in order to construct nuclear technologies for the United States of America in San Diego, until it was purchased by Gulf Oil in 1967. [1] After being passed around like a nasty fruitcake between oil companies, it was bought by Neal and Linden Blue who took the company from the oil company to make, among many things, airplanes. [2]
In the early 1990s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) wanted a new reconnaissance drone plane. It wasn’t the first time the CIA had flown spy drones. Drone aircraft have existed even before the Second World War. Some examples were Teledyne Ryan Firebee (first drone with a jet engine) and the Lockheed D-21 (the Mach 3+ supersonic drone that spied on the People’s Republic of China)
[3]
The Predator’s cocaine driven Kawasaki riding uncle.

However, these drones were expensive and impractical. The Firebee only flew fast and quickly consumed much of its fuel while the D-21 quickly zipped by in order to not get shot down by the mainland Chinese (which they later caught on with quicker Surface to Air Missiles). The CIA needed a drone that could stick around a zone of conflict and not make the Top Brass worry if the drone gets shot down. By 1994, General Atomics gave the CIA and the Pentagon the RQ-1A Predator (R for Reconnaissance and Q for being an unmanned aircraft). This was a rather revolutionary design for an unmanned aircraft. The wings were long and rectangular to get the best lift at the slowest speed possible. It was a light aircraft so it didn’t need a huge engine to power it. The engine, a Rotax 914, is a small four-cylinder motor with a 115 horsepower engine. [4] Its almost the same caliber as a motor of a Honda Fit. This small engine is to keep all of this in the air:

[5]

The Predator entered military service in 1995, right in time to spy on the Serbians during the many conflicts that occurred in the Balkans. Many more flew and went down for the rest of the decade. Despite this, there was no loss of life, nor any danger to the airmen. It later became a common enforcer of Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch in patrolling the Iraqi airspace and patrol the ground during the latter war. It was after 2001 that the Predator was armed with anti-tank Hellfire missiles, which designated the aircraft as the MQ-1A (M for multi-role). The Predator also broke a new record in 2002. It fired on another aircraft. It used a Stinger missile (the same anti-air missile soldiers, Taliban, and Modern Warfare 2 gamers fondly use against the Predator) to take out the Iraqi fighter jet. While it lost the fight, it was never designed to fly and fight like the fighter jocks, it proved a milestone as being the first UAV to enter a dogfight.

The future looks bright for the R2D2 of the skies. It is the frontline aircraft in attacking the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan/northern Pakistan. It also spawned its more powerful cousin, the MQ-9 Reaper.

[6]
A more powerful and larger UAV with a powerful turboprop engine and capable of using many missiles and bombs that are usually carried by the fancier fighter jets.

There is also an advanced version that recently entered service this year. The MQ-1C Warrior has a longer range and a diesel piston engine that uses jet fuel:

[7]

In short, this aircraft is slowly becoming a ubiquitous sight in the news and in the warzone. Heck, it is even slipping into the mainstream media (with it being part of games such as Modern Warfare 2) and even in webcomics. It’s practicality and efficiency allows it to loiter long enough to give the soldiers a bird’s eye view of their battlezone. As a hunter-killer UAV, it has proven time and time again that it is one of the best weapons of modern combat and one of the most practical aircraft to ever take to the skies.

[8]
Stay frosty.

[1] Wikipedia contributors, 'General Atomics', Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 11 December 2009, 01:57 UTC, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Atomics&oldid=330999846.
[2]Ibid.
[3] Wikipedia contributors, "Lockheed D-21/M-21," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_D-21/M-21&oldid=331951375
[4] Wikipedia contributors, "MQ-1 Predator," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MQ-1_Predator&oldid=332551095.
[5] Own picture. used Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 and addons to this software.
[6] Wikipedia contributors, "MQ-9 Reaper," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MQ-9_Reaper&oldid=332701194.
[7] Wikipedia contributors, "MQ-1C Warrior," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MQ-1C_Warrior&oldid=331301738
[8] Own picture. used Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 and addons to this software.