January 28, 2026 - No. 04 In This Issue : There are 90 aircraft but no F-22 Raptors’: Why USS Abraham Lincoln cannot operate US most advanced fighter jet : Few people know it, but France is the only country in Europe capable of building fighter jet engines with such precision, thanks to the DGA : Can General Aviation Transition to Unleaded Avgas by 2030? : The U.S. Air Force’s F-16XL Fighter Mistake Still Stings : U.S. Army tests GPS-denied UH-60 navigation system : Why the Boeing 777X is the first commercial plane with folding wings and why they stay unfolded in flight : United Airlines Grounds Dozens of Boeing 777s Over Engine Failures : Why does Boeing use the number 7 in all its aircraft names? : Trimble introduces RTX-NMA to combat GNSS spoofing : Loose Connection Leads To Crash ‘90 aircraft but no F-22 Raptors’: Why USS Abraham Lincoln cannot operate US most advanced fighter jet Edited By Abhinav Yadav Note: See photos (1-7) in the original article. Published: Jan 26, 2026, 18:21 IST | Updated: Jan 26, 2026, 18:21 IST The USS Abraham Lincoln carries a formidable air wing of up to 90 aircraft, including the F-35C, but never the F-22 Raptor. The Raptor lacks the structural strength for catapult launches and arrested landings. Its delicate stealth coating cannot survive sea conditions. 1 / 7 (Photograph: Wikimedia Commons) A Floating Fortress of Air Power The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is a Nimitz-class carrier capable of carrying up to 90 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Its current air wing includes F/A-18 Super Hornets and the stealthy F-35C Lightning II, but the F-22 Raptor remains strictly land-based. 2 / 7 (Photograph: Wikimedia Commons) The Design Barrier The F-22 Raptor was built exclusively for the US Air Force, not the Navy, meaning its airframe cannot withstand the brutal forces of carrier operations. Its landing gear is too light to survive the "controlled crash" of landing on a moving deck. 3 / 7 (Photograph: Wikimedia Commons) The Tail Hook Problem While the F-22 has a tail hook, it is only for emergency runway stops, not for repeated carrier arrestments. A true naval fighter like the F-35C has a reinforced hook designed to catch steel cables at high speeds without tearing off the aircraft. 4 / 7 (Photograph: Wikimedia Commons) Stealth vs Salt Water The F-22’s highly sensitive stealth coating is difficult to maintain even on land-based runways. The harsh, salty marine environment of an aircraft carrier would rapidly corrode the jet’s radar-absorbing skin, compromising its invisibility. 5 / 7 (Photograph: Lockheed Martin) Catapult Incompatibility To launch from a carrier, jets must be attached to steam or electromagnetic catapults that accelerate them to flight speed in seconds. The F-22’s nose gear was never designed for this explosive tension and would likely snap under the strain. 6 / 7 The 'Sea Raptor' That Never Was In the 1990s, Congress proposed a naval variant called the F-22N "Sea Raptor" with variable sweep wings. The Navy rejected it, citing excessive costs and engineering changes that would have compromised the jet’s stealth and performance. 7 / 7 (Photograph: pacom.mil) The F-35C Instead of forcing the Raptor onto a boat, the Navy developed the F-35C Lightning II. It features larger wings for slower landing speeds, ruggedised landing gear, and folding wingtips, making it the true stealth king of the carrier deck. There are 90 aircraft but no F-22 Raptors’: Why USS Abraham Lincoln cannot operate US most advanced fighter jet Few people know it, but France is the only country in Europe capable of building fighter jet engines with such precision, thanks to the DGA By Miles Carterwood 26 January 2026 : 17:25 The tests are loud, technical and sometimes brutal, yet they shape how France aims to stay airborne, independent and competitive in a fast-hardening global arms race. France’s hidden advantage in the skies France likes to talk about its Rafale fighter jet. Far fewer people talk about what keeps it flying: the M88 engine and those who shape its future. At the heart of this story stands the DGA, the French defence procurement and technology agency, working hand in hand with engine-maker Safran. In Saclay, south of Paris, the DGA runs a test centre that French officials describe as unique in Europe. It can recreate, with uncanny precision, the air a fighter jet breathes at extreme altitude and speed. That level of control, paired with aggressive testing, gives France an edge no other European country currently matches. France’s Saclay site is the only facility in Europe able to reproduce, in such detail, the real breathing conditions of a jet engine in combat flight. This is not just about making engines slightly better. The goal is to redesign key parts so they can withstand temperatures where ordinary metals fail, cut fuel burn, and keep the entire supply chain under French control. Inside the Saclay test bay Since autumn 2025, the DGA’s teams have been running future versions of the M88 on a test stand and pushing them to the edge. The engines are cranked up under simulated conditions close to what a Rafale might face in a high-altitude, high-speed turn. Simulating a Rafale at 15,000 metres The Saclay facility can tune temperature, pressure and humidity with remarkable granularity. Technicians can mimic a fighter jet flying at roughly 15,000 metres, turning at around Mach 1.5, while the engine gulps in thin, cold air. They can also do the opposite: blast the engine with suddenly heated air to simulate harsh, repeated stress over time. This “accelerated ageing” allows engineers to see in hours what would normally take years of flying. By compressing years of wear into a short test campaign, DGA engineers can spot weak points long before they show up in operational fleets. After every test, the work becomes almost forensic. The engine is stripped down, components are inspected under microscopes and, in some cases, sent to another DGA site focused on aerospace techniques for deeper analysis. Every crack, deformation or discolouration feeds back into design models. Can General Aviation Transition to Unleaded Avgas by 2030? By Ben Visser January 14, 2026 The unleaded fuel from GAMI is now for sale at airports. (Photo by GAMI) At the start of a new year, it’s good to look back over the past year and see what progress has been made. In the aviation fuels and lubricants world, the big story remains unleaded fuel and the development of new specifications for that fuel by ASTM, a global, non-profit organization that develops voluntary, consensus-based technical standards for a vast array of materials, products, and systems, including aviation fuel. As a bit of history, the move to an unleaded avgas began in the 1990s. I remember attending an organizational meeting for an ASTM spec during EAA AirVenture Oshkosh in the late 1990s. The ASTM representative stated it should take about five or six years to write and get a new specification approved. I pointed out that it had taken about 17 years to approve the 82UL avgas spec. As for the unleaded fuel spec? Work on that began more than 25 years ago and continues today. The problem is that the committee writing the spec has to make sure the new fuel meets all of the requirements for every aircraft ever manufactured. And it has to cover almost any blend of new fuel, as well as any compatibility concerns that could come up. So what is the status of the 100 octane unleaded avgas spec and unleaded fuels for general aviation? There are three candidate fuels in the transition to unleaded avgas that have been approved in two different ways. The G100UL fuel from General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) is now being produced and sold at some airports after getting approval through a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) process in 2022. All gasoline powered aircraft and engines in the FAA’s type certificate database are covered by the STC for G100UL, according to GAMI officials. Swift Fuels, one of the first in the unleaded fuel space, received an ASTM spec in September 2025 for its 100R unleaded avgas for use in Cessna 172R and 172S models with Lycoming IO-360-L2A engines. The company is working with the FAA to expand that Approved Model List (AML). And in late December 2025, the last of the contenders, LyondellBasell and VP Racing received its first specification for UL100E, which is still undergoing testing through the FAA’s Piston Aircraft Fuel Initiative (PAFI) program. These evaluations are expected to be completed by September 2026, according to Lyondell officials. As the testing continues, the two different approval methods have created some issues. That’s because the industry needs a universal specification that all manufacturers can approve and will stand behind. Pilots are used to a common specification for 100LL so they can fly anywhere in the U.S. — or even outside the country — and be confident that the fuel they are buying is approved for their aircraft. General aviation has given itself a deadline of 2030 to fully transition to unleaded fuels, working through an industry-government initiative known as EAGLE (Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions). But can it meet that deadline when so many technical issues remain? Of the candidates, the GAMI fuel seems to work well except it has some chemically active components that may cause fuel system deterioration in some older aircraft. It also has no exhaust valve seat protection and is only approved by an STC, which means an aircraft owner must buy the STC to use the fuel in their aircraft. My experience with STC-approved products through Shell was not very positive. It reminds me of a story. Back in 1958, Shell developed the Aeroshell Oil W line of aircraft piston engine oils and was trying to get them approved by the military. The military would not approve a new oil without competing products. That meant Shell had to get another company to produce a competing product before a new spec could be issued. Back to the Future The other two fuels that have earned initial specifications are based on a good quality alkylate plus ETBE (Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether). The Swift fuel also has an unidentified exhaust recession additive. I see a couple of possible problems here. The first is water pollution. Back in the 1990s, there was a real battle between MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether), ETBE (Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether), and ethanol for which one would be used in auto gas. Ethanol won by showing that MTBE and ETBE were a danger to ground water and should not be allowed. There is also a concern about safety when handling ETBE, as well as what could happen if there is a fuel leak in flight. And we all know the effects of inhaling an ether product. Meanwhile, the industry still needs to create the infrastructure needed to produce and deliver the on-spec fuels, not just to all parts of our country, but around the world. So there are still many technical issues to settle, plus the need for a single approved specification that all aircraft manufacturers will stand behind. We need a single authority that knows what they are doing, that can sort out the technical issues, and make an informed decision. Since 2030 is only four years away, maybe we should start looking at 2040 or later. The U.S. Air Force’s F-16XL Fighter Mistake Still Stings By Harrison Kass Published January 10, 2026 F-16XL fighter. Image Credit: Creative Commons. Key Points and Summary on F-16XL Fighter – The F-16XL was a radical “what-if” aircraft featuring a cranked-arrow delta wing designed to transform the standard F-16 into a high-speed deep strike bomber. -Although it offered superior aerodynamics, range, and payload capacity compared to the F-16, the XL ultimately lost the USAF’s Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition to the F-15E Strike Eagle. -The Air Force prioritized the F-15E’s twin-engine survivability and two-crew workload management over the XL’s performance, though the prototypes later served a critical role in NASA’s supersonic research. Why the Radical F-16XL Lost the Air Force’s Critical Strike Competition The F-16XL remains one of the most striking “what-if” aircraft in US Air Force history. A dramatic reimagining of the F-16, the XL-variant was bigger, faster, and longer-ranged. Designed to solve a real operational problem, not just chase aesthetics, the F-16XL lost a major USAF competition (to the F-15E), but not because the jet suffered from any drastic shortcomings; the F-16XL was a capable fighter, whose legacy endures in modern strike fighters, NASA research, and design philosophies. What Was the F-16XL The F-16XL was a heavily modified derivative of the standard F-16, featuring a cranked-arrow delta wing. The purpose: deep strike missions, high-speed penetration, large weapons payload. The XL retained the standard variants’ single-engine configuration and groundbreaking fly-by-wire controls—but fundamentally changed the platform’s aerodynamics and mission profile. Whereas the F-16 was a pure in-tight dogfighter, the XL was more of a light strike bomber, designed around range, payload, and efficiency—not turning fights. Why the F-16XL was Built In the late Cold War, the USAF sought a replacement for the revolutionary, yet aging, F-111 Aardvark, something capable of long-range interdiction, offering supersonic dash and a heavy payload. General Dynamics proposed an F-16 variant rather than a clean-sheet aircraft, promising advantages such as lower cost relative to a new bomber and shared logistics with the existing F-16 fleet. The new XL was optimized for speed at low altitude and high-drag weapon carriage. F-16XL. Image Credit: NASA. Image of what would have been the F-16XL, an artist rendering. Image Credit: Creative Commons. Image: Creative Commons. Technical Specifications of the F-16XL The most obvious difference between the F-16 and the F-16XL was the wing design; the XL had 120 percent more wing area than the standard F-16, with a cranked-arrow shape that reduced drag at supersonic speeds. The new wing offered performance benefits, specifically higher sustained supersonic cruise and improved fuel efficiency at speed. The payload was vastly improved, with up to 27 hardpoints and the ability to carry weapons externally without imposing an extreme drag penalty. The XL’s range was significantly extended relative to the standard F-16. Stability at high speeds was excellent, although the aircraft was built with less emphasis on low-speed agility. The engines were unadjusted, still the same F100/F110 lineage. In sum, the F-16 XL was one of the most aerodynamically efficient strike designs of its era. ETF Competition The F-16XL was entered in the USAF’s Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) competition, pitted head-to-head with the F-15E. The F-16XL retained some advantages over its competitor, namely better supersonic efficiency, lower project operating costs, and a smaller radar cross-section. The F-15E had an edge on survivability, with twin engines, mission complexity, a two-crew cockpit, and room for future growth. The F-16XL performed admirably, but the USAF’s priorities were trending towards an emphasis on redundancy, crew workload sharing, and all-weather, night strike—a trend the F-15E was better positioned to capitalize on. So the F-16XL didn’t lose on performance, but on institutional comfort levels. The F-16XL was considered the riskier airplane—understandably, the single-engine configuration was seen as a liability for deep-strike missions. The F-15E also offered improved growth potential, with more space and more power. The decision reflected doctrine and culture and politics, not necessarily a lack of confidence in the F-16XL. Silver linings After losing the ETF competition, the two F-16XL prototypes were transferred to NASA, which used them for supersonic laminar-flow research, sonic-boom studies, and advanced aerodynamics testing. The airframes were used to validate wing-efficiency claims and the benefits of high-speed cruise. F-16XL testing would influence later thinking on drag reduction and supersonic aircraft design, meaning the relatively obscure, two-off platform made an outsized influence, proving its value long after the USAF rejection. Enduring Legacy The F-16XL anticipated payload-centric strike fighters optimized for aerodynamics rather than brute force. Lessons absorbed from the F-16XL program were even incorporated into F-15E upgrades and subsequent strike design philosophies. You Might Also Like So, it could be said that the XL failed as a program but succeeded as an idea. In effect, the XL was not a dead end, just an innovation branch that the USAF chose not to pursue. The ETF loss ultimately highlighted how requirements shape outcomes and how culture shapes procurement. Today, the F-16 XL stands as one of the most technically impressive fighters never to be fielded. U.S. Army tests GPS-denied UH-60 navigation system NewsArmyPRESS RELEASES By Emily Ryan Miller Jan 23, 2026 Modified date: Jan 23, 2026 (Safran Federal Systems pic) Key Points • Safran Federal Systems completed a flight test of its Blacknaute inertial navigation system on a U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk, confirming accurate navigation without GPS in electronic warfare conditions. • The test supports U.S. Army efforts to field assured navigation systems that maintain aircraft operations when satellite signals are denied or disrupted. Safran Federal Systems has completed a successful flight demonstration of its Blacknaute inertial navigation system aboard a U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, the company announced on January 21, confirming the system’s ability to operate accurately in GPS-denied and electronically contested environments. The test flight validated that the Blacknaute system maintained precise navigation performance without reliance on satellite navigation signals, a capability increasingly demanded as modern battlefields face widespread jamming and spoofing threats. As noted by the company, the flight confirmed that Blacknaute sustained inertial drift of less than 0.4 nautical miles per hour over several hours of operation, meeting operational requirements for rotary-wing aircraft operating in degraded or denied navigation conditions. “Our demonstration onboard the Army Black Hawk showcases the tactical readiness of Blacknaute,” said Jon Leombrone, Executive Vice President of Navigation Systems at Safran Federal Systems. “The system maintained drift of less than 0.4 nautical miles per hour over several hours—proof of its SWaP-optimized, NAVWAR-resilient design engineered for rapid deployment across the Joint Force.” Blacknaute was developed as an Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT) solution for multi-domain operations, including air, land, sea, space, and cyber environments. The system is intended to provide continuous navigation and timing data when Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) are unavailable or unreliable due to electronic attack or signal interference. Safran Federal Systems said the system is purpose-built for operations where GPS signals are jammed, spoofed, or deliberately denied, a scenario that has become common in recent conflicts and military exercises. The company emphasized that the flight demonstration confirms the system’s readiness for integration into operational U.S. Army aviation platforms. The Blacknaute system integrates several navigation and timing technologies into a compact unit weighing less than 16 pounds, making it suitable for helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and other platforms with limited space and power margins. At the core of the system is Safran’s HRG Dual Core technology, a hemispherical resonator gyro platform that the company says has been fielded in more than 40,000 units and accumulated over 30 million operational hours across defense and aerospace applications. The gyro provides inertial reference data independent of external signals, allowing continued navigation in denied environments. The system also includes an M-Code-ready GNSS receiver, enabling secure operation with military-grade satellite navigation signals when available, as well as multi-constellation compatibility for improved resilience. For timing, Blacknaute incorporates an ultra-stable atomic clock that Safran says can maintain accuracy with a drift of less than one second over 30,000 years, supporting synchronization of mission systems even when external timing sources are lost. To address active electronic threats, the system features built-in interference detection and mitigation functions designed to identify and counter GPS jamming and spoofing attempts in real time. Safran stated that this capability improves aircraft survivability and mission continuity in electronic warfare environments. The architecture is compliant with U.S. military open systems standards, including MIL-STD interfaces and TSO-C220 requirements, enabling integration with modular avionics and mission systems already in service across U.S. and allied platforms. The successful demonstration aboard a UH-60 Black Hawk highlights the U.S.Army’s growing focus on assured navigation for rotary-wing aviation, which often operates at low altitude and in contested airspace. Helicopters are particularly vulnerable to navigation disruption due to terrain masking and proximity to ground-based electronic warfare systems. According to Safran, Blacknaute is designed to support rapid fielding across multiple Army and joint platforms without requiring major aircraft modifications. The company said the system’s open architecture allows it to be integrated into existing avionics suites as part of ongoing modernization programs. Safran Federal Systems provides navigation and PNT solutions to Safran Defense & Space, supporting classified and unclassified U.S. defense programs that require resilient navigation and timing under combat conditions. Why the Boeing 777X is the first commercial plane with folding wings and why they stay unfolded in flight Published on Jan 24, 2026 at 11:26 PM (UTC+4) by Ben Thompson Last updated on Jan 22, 2026 at 10:24 PM (UTC+4) Edited by Emma Matthews Note: See photos and videos in the original article. Did you know that the Boeing 777X is the first commercial plane to come with folding wings – and they stay unfolded in flight? Its full wingspan is 235.5 feet, which would make it too wide to fit in many existing airport gates. By folding the wings up at the end, the 777X is able to fit into airports with no hassle. But why do they stay unfolded mid-flight? Taking a closer look at the folding wings of the Boeing 777X We’re used to seeing commercial planes with a wide wingspan. But this is something else. You know how they say everything’s bigger in Texas? Boeing 777X/YouTube Well, the Boeing 777X must have rolled straight out of Dallas, because this is one seriously big plane. Its wings are 23 feet longer than those on a 777, intended to make the plane more fuel efficient. But with a bigger wingspan, you have to take fitting into airports into account. And that’s where folding wingtips come into play. Inside Flyer/YouTube Not that you’ll see them like this while the plane is in the air. Extended wings are needed for peak performance and maximum lift. How does the plane look in action? As you might imagine, seeing a plane of this size in motion is an impressive display. And we’ve seen that in videos of the plane’s takeoff. CNET Plenty of clips have been doing the rounds online, like this one where a 777X endured a crosswind test in Texas. Timeline of Boeing 777X 2013: Boeing officially announced the Boeing 777X program, targeting 2020 as the point at which it’d enter service. 2020: The 777X makes its first maiden flight on January 25. 2021: First delivery shifts from 2021 to 2023/2024 after the FAA delayed certification. 2022: Further delays push anticipated deliveries back to 2025. 2024: The 777X is grounded after the discovery of a structural link issue, prompting additional inspections. 2025: Testing resumed in January. As of November, 619 total orders have been placed. United Airlines Grounds Dozens of Boeing 777s Over Engine Failures At least one aircraft was officially moved into storage last month, with more expected to follow as engine availability remains constrained. By Kevin Derby January 15, 2026 CHICAGO- United Airlines (UA) is placing multiple Pratt & Whitney-powered Boeing 777 aircraft into long-term storage as engine reliability issues and parts shortages disrupt operations. The affected aircraft operate critical high-density and long-haul routes, including Hawaii, Asia, and Europe. Additional engine incidents could trigger regulatory action that restricts extended overwater flights, placing some of United’s most important routes at risk. Photo: jpellgen | Flickr United Boeing 777 Fleet Grounded United operates a total of 96 Boeing 777 aircraft, broken down as follows: • 22 Boeing 777-300ERs • 55 Boeing 777-200ERs • 19 Boeing 777-200s Of these, 52 aircraft are powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4000-112 engines, all inherited from legacy United operations prior to the Continental merger. United is the only US airline operating Boeing 777s with these engines. This creates significant exposure: • Approximately 54 percent of United’s Boeing 777 fleet • Roughly 23 percent of United’s total widebody fleet (52 of 223 aircraft, including 777s, 787s, and 767s) The average age of United’s 777-200 fleet is 27.5 years, while the 777-200ER fleet averages 24.8 years. Older aircraft are more difficult to support, and limited spare engines and maintenance capacity are now grounding otherwise serviceable airframes. United has begun formally storing, not retiring, some Pratt-powered Boeing 777s in Victorville, California, a known long-term aircraft storage location. At least one aircraft was officially moved into storage last month, with more expected to follow as engine availability remains constrained. According to View from the Wing, engine parts shortages, especially the lack of spare PW4000 engines and limited shop capacity, are the primary drivers behind these storage decisions. Some sources suggest a partial solution may emerge, but current conditions indicate that a meaningful number of aircraft could remain parked through the summer. Photo: Athul Suresh/ An Airsidean PW4000 Engine Problem and Inspection Burden The Pratt & Whitney PW4000-112 engine has been linked to multiple high-profile fan blade failures. Over time, fatigue cracks can develop on the interior surfaces of hollow fan blades, where visual inspections cannot detect them. If a crack propagates: • A fan blade can fracture • The failure can cause violent engine damage • Surrounding structures may be compromised • Fires or debris release can occur Following earlier incidents, the FAA issued a 2021 emergency airworthiness directive requiring advanced imaging inspections rather than standard visual checks. These inspections are time-consuming and must be repeated frequently. Boeing and Pratt & Whitney are working on integrated engine and airframe design changes. The FAA has mandated that these modifications be fully incorporated by March 2028, although Boeing and United have requested additional time. Until then, aircraft cycle through repeated inspections and maintenance visits, often remaining idle while awaiting engines. Photo: X User Previous Engine Failures In February 2018, United Flight 1175 experienced a fan blade separation near Hawaii. While on approach to Honolulu, the aircraft lost parts of the right engine inlet and fan cowl. The crew shut down the engine and landed safely. The subsequent investigation revealed that a blade with a known crack had been returned to service. Investigators cited training and feedback weaknesses as contributing factors. In February 2021, United Flight 328 suffered a catastrophic engine failure shortly after departing Denver. A full-length fan blade separation caused extensive nacelle damage, scattering debris over a residential area. Within days, the FAA grounded much of United’s Pratt-powered 777 fleet and initiated a multi-year inspection and modification program. More than 50 aircraft were removed from service during this process. Photo: Cado Photo Network Consequences of Parking 777s These aircraft perform two critical roles within United’s network: 1. High-density leisure routes where maximum seat capacity matters 2. Long-haul international routes where range and payload are essential As aircraft are removed from service, United must: • Substitute smaller widebodies such as 787s or 767s • Reduce frequencies on existing routes • Cancel routes that lack suitable replacements Previous engine constraints forced United to delay or cancel services such as Washington Dulles–Dakar and Newark–Stockholm, highlighting how quickly fleet limitations translate into network reductions. Photo: Cado Photo Risk of Losing Extended Overwater Approval Extended overwater operations depend on strict FAA engine reliability standards measured by in-flight shutdown rates. For twin-engine aircraft, the thresholds are: • 0.05 shutdowns per 1,000 engine-hours for up to 120 minutes • 0.03 shutdowns per 1,000 engine-hours for 120 to 180 minutes • 0.02 shutdowns per 1,000 engine-hours for beyond 180 minutes The FAA does not automatically revoke approvals due to elevated shutdown rates. If issues stem from design flaws, operators are not immediately penalized. However, if shutdowns are linked to systemic maintenance or operational shortcomings, the FAA may impose reduced diversion limits. Because the total engine-hour base is limited, even a single additional shutdown can significantly spike the rate. Reduced overwater authority would remove these aircraft from transpacific, Hawaii, and certain transatlantic routes. United would be forced to reassign other aircraft types and restrict affected 777s to routes near diversion airports. Inefficient coastal or Iceland-style routings would not be viable for regular operations. Photo: By tjdarmstadt – IMG_0388.jpg, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61530146 Restoring Overwater Authority Regaining higher diversion-time approval requires sustained reliability performance, an approved maintenance program, and demonstrated results over time. Boeing and Pratt & Whitney must complete long-term design improvements under FAA oversight. Even if regulatory approval is restored, engine and parts shortages could still limit aircraft availability. As a result, United may face continued operational constraints even after compliance milestones are met. Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates. Join us on Telegram Group for the Latest Aviation Updates. Subsequently, follow us on Google News Why does Boeing use the number 7 in all its aircraft names? The 7X7 numbering convention has proven successful for Boeing for decades, but with only the 797 left to go, we consider what Boeing might do next. Marisa Garcia January 25, 2026 Subscribe If you’ve ever wondered why almost every commercial jet from Boeing starts with a 7—from the 707 to the 787—you’re not alone. It isn’t because of superstition related to the perceived luckiness of that number. It’s a quirk of internal company logic that stuck, helped by a little good timing and a lot of success. Here’s how it happened. The “7” tradition started as an internal numbering system In the early 1950s, Boeing organised its projects using hundred-series numbers. Each block was reserved for a category of work: • 300 – piston aircraft • 400 – military jets • 500 – gas turbines • 600 – missiles • 700 – commercial jet transports When Boeing began developing its first jet airliner, it fell neatly into the 700 series. That aeroplane became the Boeing 707. The “7” wasn’t chosen for luck—it just meant this is a jetliner. Why 707, specifically? Boeing has never claimed a mystical or cultural meaning behind the number. The association with “luck” or “perfection” came after the aircraft became successful, not before. Boeing’s first prototype jetliner was the Model 367-80—the famous “Dash 80”—which served as the baseline for the KC-135 tanker and the company’s first commercial jet: the 707. Boeing marketing wanted something cleaner and more memorable for airlines, and the 707 fit the bill: modern-sounding, symmetrical, and easy to say. Dash 80 air-to-air photo by Joe Parke. Photo: Boeing Dreamscape | Wikimedia Commons Once the Boeing 707 entered service in 1958 and proved wildly successful, the company had a naming template it didn’t want to mess with. The symbolism of the company’s 7X7 numbering pattern evolved through decades of operational dominance. Success locked the 7X7 pattern in place After the 707 came: • Boeing 727 – optimised for shorter runways • Boeing 737 – the best-selling jetliner ever • Boeing 747 – the original jumbo jet • Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 • Boeing 777 • Boeing 787 Dreamliner By the time the Boeing 737 and 747 reshaped global air travel, the 7×7 pattern was forged into Boeing’s brand. Airlines, regulators, financiers, and passengers all recognised it instantly. Changing the numbering scheme would have been like Apple renaming the iPhone to something else mid-run. The lesser-known Boeing 7 numbers The Boeing numbering pattern is selective and strategic, but Boeing has strayed from the 7X7 pattern and used numbers out of sequence. • The 720 was essentially a shorter-range variant of the 707. • The 717 began life as the McDonnell Douglas MD-95. Boeing renumbered it after acquiring the company. Boeing 2707 mockup at the Hiller Aviation Museum. Photo: Bill Abbott | Wikimedia Commons Boeing even went for four digits once. The Boeing 2707 – Supersonic Transport (SST) is perhaps the most famous “lost” Boeing number. • Designed as a Mach 2.7–3.0 supersonic airliner • Would have seated up to 300 passengers • Won the US SST program in the 1960s • Cancelled in 1971 due to cost, noise, and environmental concerns Instead of venturing into supersonic flight, Boeing built the Boeing 747 jumbo jet, which reshaped the airline industry. Boeing will probably never abandon “7”, but it is getting harder to use 7X7 Today, “7-something-7” instantly signals a Boeing jet in a way few industrial naming systems manage. It’s short, global, regulator-friendly, and embedded in aviation culture. If Boeing launches a new clean-sheet aircraft, odds are overwhelming that it will still be a 7X7. At this point, the number isn’t just a label—it’s a lineage. But this three-digit numbering convention also presents a challenge: it is almost used up. All but one of the possible 7X7 variations have already flown—only 797 remains to be applied on the drawing board. The 797 may be the last Boeing commercial airliner designed with a conventional cylindrical fuselage and powered by fuel engines. The number has long been unofficially associated with Boeing’s new midsize aircraft, though the manufacturer has not used it, industry watchers have. Boeing also hasn’t committed to building an NMA any time soon. Photo: Dubai Airshow Boeing has managed to stretch the other numbers in the original 7X7 sequence, using letters and dash numbers to identify the variants: 737 MAX 7, 8, 9, 10, or 777-8, 777-9, 777-10 for the new 777X family. The only issue is that regulators will allow certification of variants under the original model number on aircraft that can be proven to be essentially similar to the previous aircraft. This limits engineering. Boeing already encountered this issue with the 737 MAX, which required some persuasion to show they did not differ significantly enough from the original 737 model to warrant a new product number. What might Boeing do if it runs out of 7s? While Boeing may only have one 7X7 variant left to apply, there are still opportunities for the company to retain either a leading or trailing “7” under a three-digit numbering convention. From 700 to 799 or from 007 to 997 (though the aircraft manufacturer would likely avoid the brand conflict with the iconic “Bond, James Bond”). Doing so would upset the symmetry that is so appealing in Boeing’s aircraft designations, but the manufacturer could maintain it with a letter in the centre: 7A7-7Z7. Boeing has already used the 7-letter-7 convention internally. The Boeing 7J7 unducted-fan testbed experimental project from the 1980s focused on ultra-high-bypass/propfan engines. It never formally launched, but the technology fed into later efficiency studies. The Boeing 7E7 was an internal program name for what became the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The “E” stood for efficiency, but the aircraft was renamed 787 before market launch. Boeing had the digit available, and why change something that works so well? Photo: LATAM Airlines Any of these new numbering conventions would give Boeing enough room to work on new clean-sheet aircraft designs for decades to come. The push for a new three-digit convention is more likely to come up as Boeing explores revolutionary aircraft designs, including hydrogen propulsion and blended-wing fuselages, which would prompt regulators to require a whole new number. Bottom line, Boeing uses the number 7 because of its early success, turning what was essentially a filing-system category into one of the most recognisable aircraft numbering conventions in aerospace history. And maybe that is lucky. Trimble introduces RTX-NMA to combat GNSS spoofing By Jesse Khalil Published August 18, 2025 Credit: ABIDAL / iStock / Getty Images Plus / Getty Images GNSS spoofing has become a regular occurrence with the potential for severe consequences when precise and reliable positioning is critical. Legacy GNSS signals are the primary target for bad actors, as most precise positioning relies on these signals, and it’s constantly getting easier and cheaper for people to fake the message. To combat this, Trimble has introduced Trimble RTX-NMA (Navigation Message Authentication), the first solution on the market to mitigate spoofing attacks on the GPS and BeiDou satellite constellations. Trimble RTX-NMA leverages the Trimble RTX correction service and enhances the security and integrity of GNSS navigation messages for all Trimble ProPoint receivers. Used in conjunction with Galileo OSNMA, users now have three constellations protected from spoofing attacks. Trimble RTX-NMA seeks to detect both fake GNSS signals and faulty ephemeris data through real-time authentication that ensures navigation messages from multiple RTX reference station receivers are genuine and trustworthy. It also encompasses faulty ephemeris detection, preventing unreliable data from being included in the correction stream. Enhanced security through advanced cryptographic techniques like AES encryption, and stream authentication, take it a step further. Trimble RTX-NMA is also compatible with various Trimble GNSS receivers using firmware version 6.40 or greater, making it a versatile solution for a wide range of applications without a subscription. With these features, Trimble RTX-NMA offers increased reliability, enhanced security, and improved integrity — an added layer of defense against potential threats such as spoofing. As reliance on GNSS continues to grow, ensuring the security and integrity of navigation data becomes paramount. Trimble RTX-NMA represents a significant step forward in addressing these challenges, offering a robust and effective solution for enhancing GNSS security. Loose Connection Leads To Crash By General Aviation News Staff January 13, 2026 According to the pilot, the flight in the experimental Raptor Junior 540 departed Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) in California, en route to Camarillo Airport (KCMA), in Camarillo, California, to conduct touch-and-go landings. About five miles southeast of KCMA, he noticed a warning indication on the airplane’s avionics display alerting him to a loss of electrical power. He stated that within seconds, the entire display, excluding the Dynon Primary Flight Display, which had a backup battery, “went blank,” followed by a total loss of engine power. He performed emergency procedures to restore electrical and engine power but was unsuccessful. He performed a forced landing to an agricultural field about 4.5 miles southeast of KCMA, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage. The pilot was seriously injured in the crash, while a passenger sustained minor injuries. The airplane was equipped with an electronic fuel injection and ignition system, manufactured by EFII Systems. Electrical system redundancy was accomplished by use of a main and auxiliary system, with two independent batteries and an alternator. The system shared a common ground line that connected the negative terminals for both batteries and was routed through a ground bus located behind the nose cone bulkhead to the engine compartment and engine case. Post-accident examination of the wreckage revealed that the ground feed-through stud that connected the battery ground terminals to the ground bus was loosely connected on the nose cone bulkhead. The feed-through nut was 3.5 turns loose, which corresponded to approximately 3.5 threads of the feed-through stud. Additionally, neither a spring lock washer nor a secondary locking nut were present on the feed-through stud assembly, as was found on all other primary electrical connections throughout the airplane. Probable Cause: A total loss of engine power due to the loss of power to the electronic fuel injection and ignition system, which was the result of a loose connection between a common ground feed-through stud and the ground bus. NTSB Identification: 193732 To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device. This January 2024 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others. Curt Lewis