September 30, 2026 - No. 39

In This Issue

: Investigators Blame F-16 Thunderbird Crash on Turned Fan Blade Deep in Engine 

: U.S. Wants to Restart C-17 Production Shut Down in 2015 — But $8B Price Tag From 2012 Only Grew 

: HAL Confirms Technical Issues Resolved for GE F414 Engine Local Production, Expects Commercial Proposal in 1–2 Months

: 737 MAX 10 Certification Coming ‘Very Soon,’ Boeing CEO Says

: Engine Provider Sees ‘Disconnect’ In U.S. Air Force CCA Planning

: Northrop Grumman says solid rocket motor output will reach 25,000 a year by 2029 to meet rising U.S. and allied missile demand

: Tell me about the new Velocys AlphaCore 800 sustainable aviation fuel reactor

: Boeing’s Latest Software Glitch Delays The 737 MAX 10 And Draws Pushback From United And Southwest - Live and Let's Fly

: United and Southwest Ask Boeing for Older Software Amid 737 MAX Glitch

: One of the greatest flying stories ever told


 



 


Investigators Blame F-16 Thunderbird Crash on Turned Fan Blade Deep in Engine

Sept. 22, 2026

By Greg Hadley

A misaligned vane in an F-16 engine that field-level maintainers cannot see to inspect caused one of the U.S. Air Force’s Thunderbird jets to crash last December, a new report concludes. The same problem led another F-16 to crash 20 months earlier.
The pilots ejected in both cases, escaping with minor injuries, while both jets were total losses. Separate Air Force Accident Investigation Boards came to similar conclusions.

The report on the Dec. 3, 2025, Thunderbird crash in the California desert was released Sept. 21. The report on the prior crash, on April 30, 2024, near Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., was released months before the Thunderbird crash, in February 2025.

The latest investigation report valued the loss of the Thunderbird F-16 at $33.5 million.
Both accidents were blamed on turned variable vanes deep in the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engine’s high-pressure compressor. Investigators determined that one or more vanes were turned and misaligned, creating “abnormal aerodynamic forces” and “irregular wake patterns” as air flowed through the engines. The resulting stress on compressor blades caused vanes to break or crack, casuing the engines to “catastrophically” fail.

The Thunderbird investigation report cited three known instances where compressor blades fractured due to turned vanes, but it did not specify a third instance. Besides the Holloman crash in 2024 and the Thunderbird crash in 2025, no publicly released Accident Investigation Board reports from the last decade mention fractured compressor blades in the F100-PW-220.

In both the Holloman and Thunderbird cases, field maintainers failed to catch the misaligned vanes. While some stages can be inspected with a borescope, the fifth stage of the engine core cannot be seen in the F100-PW-220 without completely disassembling the engine core.

Notably, both F-16 engines in question had experienced foreign object debris, or FOD, events in the years prior to the crashes. The Thunderbird jet engine’s FOD event occurred in October 2021, and the Holloman F-16’s FOD event happened in August 2022. In both cases, maintainers noted damage to early stages of the inlet fan but found no issues with the fourth, seventh, or eighth stages, which they could inspect using a borescope.

The Air Force’s technical orders for the F-16 do not require maintainers to remove and disassemble the engine core to inspect those stages after a FOD event if no damage is found in the surrounding stages. It’s unclear if the FOD events caused the vanes to turn, however, so cannot be clearly blamed for triggering the events.

The accident investigation board for the Holloman F-16 crash noted that Pratt & Whitney’s analysis determined the FOD event was the probable cause of the vane turning, but expert opinions varied when asked if it was possible for damage to occur to a later stage if no damage was observed in the ones before it. That left the cause inconclusive.

Similarly, the board for the Thunderbird crash noted that it was “impossible to conclusively determine” what caused the turned vanes. It did, however, note that the lack of inspection for the fifth and sixth stages after a FOD event “substantially contributed to the mishap.”

“The post-FOD event guidance contains an inherent inability to inspect these specific sections of the engine core. Additionally, the core of the engine is only inspected during scheduled maintenance when a core component reaches its overhaul threshold, leaving time for potential damage to progress undetected,” the report states.

A spokesperson for the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center did not immediately comment on whether the technical guidance might be changed to require complete inspections following a FOD event or to trigger other steps to prevent similar mishaps. In February 2025, after the report for the Holloman crash was released, the spokesperson said the center’s F-16 program office “is looking at this issue and is working closely with the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s Propulsion Directorate, the engineering authority for the engine, to correct any deficiencies.”
Impact Crater, Empennage, and Engine from the crash site. Image from Air Force Accident Investigation Board report

‘Ejecting Was Ultimately the Only Option’
In addition to detailing the engine issues, the Thunderbird report detailed how the pilot did everything possible to save the jet.

An experienced instructor pilot with nearly 1,400 flight hours, the pilot was on a routine training flight working on loops and rolls and flying from the Thunderbirds’ famed “delta formation.” The mishap pilot had planned to peel off from the formation during the loops to avoid exacerbating a stiff neck, then rejoin the formation for the rolls. But as the pilot waited to rejoin, the engine stalled. It felt “like the jet just … stopped midair,” the pilot told investigators.

Seeking to recover, the pilot sacrificed speed to gain altitude, then tried a secondary engine control. When that didn’t work, the pilot attempted an engine restart. “It sounded like things were grinding,” the pilot reported later. Finally, more than four minutes after the engine stalled, the pilot chose to eject.

The Accident Investigation Board concluded that “ejecting was ultimately the only option which provided a favorable outcome.”

Yet the ejection wasn’t flawless—the F-16’s ACES II ejection seat has two hoses that transfer hot gas from the ejection initiators to the sequence valves, and they’re supposed to disconnect automatically during an ejection. One of the hoses in the Thunderbird F-16 didn’t disconnect properly but ripped from the violence of the ejection.

The plane went down near Trone, Calif., a small desert community near Death Valley. Upon impact, debris scattered up to 750 feet away. A local civilian who saw the crash got to the pilot first, and Navy search and rescue responded within minutes to transport for medical care. The pilot was discharged the same day.



 


 


U.S. Wants to Restart C-17 Production Shut Down in 2015 — But $8B Price Tag From 2012 Only Grew

Ivan Kyrychevskiy

September 21, 2026
23332

Note: See photos and videos in the original article. 

C-17 / Photo credit: U.S. Air Force

USAF debates restarting line vs extending fleet life as NGAL replacement won't arrive until 2040s while Australia, UK, Canada and UAE eye new airframes
Back in June 2025, question arose about U.S. contemplating possible C-17 heavy military transport aircraft production restart, which was closed back in 2015.
Over a year later, Americans still have not made decision on this topic. Although here delay may literally cost money, considering that back in 2012 RAND Corporation calculations showed C-17 production restart would cost minimum $8 billion (at 2012 prices).

Further we will proceed from corresponding The War Zone publication, which states following. U.S. Air Force command currently proceeds from assumption that in 2040s existing C-5 and C-17 heavy military transport aircraft will be replaced by advanced NGAL (Next-Generation Airlift) platform.

However while this NGAL project is implemented in metal, question arises about what to do with existing C-5 and C-17 — simply extend service life, or possibly return to idea of restarting C-17 production.

Especially since first serial aircraft of this type first flew 35 years ago, meaning there may be quite limited remaining potential for further modernizations and service life extensions.

There is also separate motivation in that entire range of foreign C-17 user countries exists, including Australia, Britain, Canada, Kuwait, India and United Arab Emirates, which have potential interest in expanding fleet of these aircraft through new airframe deliveries. Especially since, as Boeing states, some of these countries demonstrate interest in possible C-17 production restart.

Defense Express notes following elements may stand in way of Americans deciding to restart C-17 production.
•	First — American Air Force command still has not made decision for itself about what it will do with existing heavy military transport aircraft fleet for period through 2040s.
•	Second — if restarting C-17 production only for foreign users, within what political vector to conduct this process, what will be the price tag in billions of dollars, and whether it will scare off interested parties.

U.S. Wants to Restart C-17 Production Shut Down in 2015 — But $8B Price Tag From 2012 Only Grew

 


HAL Confirms Technical Issues Resolved for GE F414 Engine Local Production, Expects Commercial Proposal in 1–2 Months

•	Thread starter
•	Chandresh Start date 
•	Sep 19, 2026 Featured News 
•	Sep 19, 2026 Replies: 3 

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has successfully ironed out all technical hurdles with US-based GE Aerospace regarding the domestic production of the F414 jet engine.

HAL Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) Ravi K. recently confirmed that the state-owned aerospace firm is now awaiting GE's commercial proposal, which is anticipated by October, though the overall scale and complexity of the project could extend the timeline by another month or two.

Speaking to the media, Ravi K. noted that GE Aerospace had previously asked for a three-month window to prepare the commercial framework.

With the technical parameters now locked in, the upcoming proposal will allow both parties to initiate direct negotiations on critical commercial aspects, including overall pricing, phased production schedules, and the exact contours of the technology transfer.


Establishing a Domestic Engine Ecosystem
The resolution of these technical discussions marks a major milestone in India’s effort to build a self-reliant aerospace manufacturing base.

The GE F414 is a highly capable afterburning turbofan engine operating in the 98-kN thrust class.

It has been officially selected to power the upcoming Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mk2, providing a significant performance leap over the F404 engines that currently power the Tejas Mk1A fleet.

Under the broader framework established between Washington and New Delhi, the deal is expected to feature an unprecedented 80% Transfer of Technology (ToT) to India.

Current plans outline the domestic production of at least 99 F414 engines to directly support the Tejas Mk2 programme.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has projected a requirement for roughly 120 to 130 Tejas Mk2 fighters, indicating that domestic engine orders are likely to expand in the future.

Furthermore, the F414 platform is slated to power the first two squadrons of India’s fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).


Next Steps and Government Clearances
Before any final manufacturing contract is signed, HAL must secure an Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) from the Ministry of Defence.

The AoN serves as the formal, in-principle approval from the government required to initiate the final procurement and funding process.

For the Indian Air Force and HAL, establishing an in-country manufacturing line for the F414 is critical.

It eliminates the supply chain vulnerabilities associated with importing fully built engines, ensures better long-term fleet sustainment, and lays the industrial groundwork for India to eventually co-develop or independently design next-generation fighter jet engines.

Once the commercial terms are finalised and the Ministry of Defence grants its clearance, HAL and GE Aerospace will be positioned to seal the final contract.






 


737 MAX 10 Certification Coming ‘Very Soon,’ Boeing CEO Says

Kelly Ortberg also gave an update on the 777X.

Zach Vasile
Saturday, September 19, 2026 at 08:00 AM ET

Verified
Edited By: Ryan Ewing

The final test flight of Boeing's 737 MAX 10. (Photo: Ryan Coe - Boeing)

Key Takeaways:

Boeing’s long-delayed 737 MAX 10 should be certified by the FAA “very soon,” CEO Kelly Ortberg said this week.

“When I left Seattle yesterday, I think we had three deliverables to complete,” Ortberg told the audience at Morgan Stanley’s Laguna Conference on Wednesday. “The FAA work is quite a bit larger to review all that documentation than on the Dash 7, but we’re in close coordination with them and working on that and so I think you’re going to see that certification very soon.”

Ortberg reiterated that flight testing for the largest MAX variant is complete, and all that remains is the “documentation phase.”

“All the real work is done now,” he said.

Ortberg also said that the European Union Aviation Safe

Boeing has already started building its first production MAX 10s in Washington. The variant makes up roughly 30% of the company’s current backlog.

The MAX 10’s target certification date has slipped several times over the last six years, mainly due to supply chain issues, fallout from the 2018-19 MAX crisis, and problems with the model’s anti-ice system. Progress toward certification has picked up in the last two years, however.

777X Update
Ortberg also gave an update on the similarly delayed 777X when asked by Morgan Stanley analyst Kristine Tan Liwag about media reports that some buyers have concerns that the type’s technology may already be out of date.

The CEO said there has been no change in its initial ordered units, and that any concerns are being addressed directly with clients.

“They’re contract discussions we’re having with our customers,” he said. “And I think we’ve got that well understood and well contained within our estimate to complete out. I don’t want to negotiate publicly on who’s getting what airplane, but I think that’s not a big issue for us. It’s something we’ve contemplated.”

Elaborating on the 777X’s progress, Ortberg said flight tests are continuing, though the type still does not have Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards (ETOPS) certification. The holdup is a mid-seal issue on the engines, he said.
“Until we get the mid-seal certification plan complete, we can’t get authorization to start that ETOPS,” he said. “We’re expecting that very soon. GE is working that diligently. I think they have to do a little more testing than what we originally planned. I think they’re still confident in the fix. So, we’ve got to get that done.”

Some testing may spill over into next year, Ortberg continued, but Boeing still expects to start deliveries of the 777X in 2027.







 


Engine Provider Sees ‘Disconnect’ In U.S. Air Force CCA Planning
Share

Brian Everstine 
September 18, 2026

Honeywell argues its F124 is a fit for a higher thrust Collaborative Combat Aircraft.
Credit: Honeywell Aerospace

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland—There is a disconnect on propulsion needs for future increments of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), as the U.S. Air Force is pressing for development in a lower thrust range than some airframers are looking for, a key industry player argues.

Honeywell Aerospace is in the mix on both sides, having been selected to develop the Skyshot 1600 as a small engine for CCA use while also pitching its already available 6,000-lb.-thrust F124. Matt Milas, Honeywell Aerospace’s president of defense and space, tells Aviation Week that there have been shifting requirements for the next increment “so we’re adjusting to what the Air Force is looking for.

“How airframers are going to ultimately incorporate the engine, that’s where things can get interesting,” he said in an interview this week at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference here.

For example, the Air Force’s push through the SOSSEC Inc. consortium for a medium thrust engine targets about 6,000-lb. thrust. This is substantially more than the Williams FJ44 that is in use on the Anduril FQ-44A and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. FQ-42A.

“There’s a lot of interest from the airframers to get more thrust than what the Air Force is talking about,” he says. “We’re hearing more on the 6-8,000 lb. of thrust, whereas the Air Force is targeting a bit less, and they’re more focused on fuel consumption.
“Whereas you can get thrust that you need to carry the payloads and go the range and just add a little bit more fuel. You can solve that at the airframe level rather than redesigning an engine to meet a target, you know, thrust-specific fuel consumption,” he said.

Developing a new system will obviously take time, and Milas says the airframers are focused on what is reliable and available now to meet an aggressive schedule.

“That’s where I’m seeing a little bit of that disconnect between what the Air Force is doing for Increment 2 versus what the airframers are looking for,” he says.

Milas says international CCA programs are also targeting that higher range of thrust for meaningful payloads and ranges. “I think that’s where ultimately things are going to shake out, but we’ll see on that front. CCAs continue to evolve,” he said.

Honeywell Aerospace, for its part, is working to get more information from prime contractors as well as the Air Force on the ultimate plan, while “playing both parties” with the F124 and Skyshot, plus the existing TPE331 that is in use on the GA-ASI MQ-9 Reaper.






 


Northrop Grumman says solid rocket motor output will reach 25,000 a year by 2029 to meet rising U.S. and allied missile demand

By Hannah Miller (Defence Industry Europe)
Corporate
|
September 24, 2026

Photo: Northrop Grumman.

Northrop Grumman plans to raise annual solid rocket motor production from more than 13,000 units to 25,000 by 2029. The expansion is aimed at meeting higher demand for U.S. and allied missile systems while adding capacity to a strained defence supply chain.

The company said it has invested more than $2 billion in solid rocket motor and munition technologies over the past several years. That spending has funded modernised facilities and manufacturing capacity that Northrop Grumman says is available to support production growth.

Northrop Grumman supplies propulsion systems for missile defence interceptors and long-range strike weapons. It said it is ready to support primary and second-source production for programmes including the Standard Missile family, Precision Strike Missile and PAC-3 MSE.

The company has delivered more than one million tactical solid rocket motors over more than seven decades. Its expansion strategy combines new factory capacity with automated manufacturing, advanced propellants and data-driven production processes.

At the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory in Rocket Center, West Virginia, Northrop Grumman has doubled tactical solid rocket motor capacity since 2021. The company expects output capacity at the site to reach three times its earlier level by early 2027.

A new 113,000-square-foot Missile Integration Facility at the West Virginia complex was designed for strike missile production. The highly automated digital factory is intended to shorten delivery times while maintaining manufacturing quality.

Northrop Grumman is pursuing a similar expansion at its Elkton, Maryland, operation, where it plans to triple capacity by 2030. Its overall production target covers four strategic sites in Utah, Maryland and West Virginia, with additional room for growth beyond the planned 2029 rate.

The company is also introducing highly loaded grain designs that allow more propellant to fit within a given volume. Those designs are engineered to withstand high internal forces while maintaining controlled and predictable combustion.

Northrop Grumman also manufactures the interceptor shell core, aft bulkhead and heatshield assemblies for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. The portfolio places the company across several parts of the U.S. industrial base supporting layered missile defence and precision-strike weapons.






 


Tell me about the new Velocys AlphaCore 800 sustainable aviation fuel reactor

The Velocys AlphaCore 800 is the highest-capacity microchannel Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reactor designed to accelerate the production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and e-fuels. Launched by Velocys in September 2026, the reactor is built specifically for larger-scale commercial projects. [1]

Key Specifications & Performance
•	Production Capacity: A single unit can produce up to 800 barrels of FT liquids per day (approximately 30,000 tonnes per year). This doubles the capacity of its predecessor, the AlphaCore 400. [1] 
•	Target Project Scale: It is optimized for large-scale SAF facilities targeting annual production volumes of 100,000 tonnes or more. [1] 
•	Core Technology: The reactor uses compact microchannel geometry to rapidly remove heat and tightly control chemical reactions. It works natively with synthesis gas (syngas) and utilizes Oxford-engineered SQRCAT catalysts to convert gas into drop-in synthetic hydrocarbons. [1] 

Principal Advantages
The introduction of the AlphaCore 800 answers industry demand for simpler configurations at larger scales: [1]
•	75% Reduction in Reactor Count: To reach an output of 1,600 barrels per day, a developer can deploy just two AlphaCore 800 units instead of eight AlphaCore 200 units. [1] 
•	Lower Capital and Unit Costs: Drastically reducing the reactor count simplifies the surrounding "Fischer-Tropsch island," cutting down on heavy associated piping, gas recycling infrastructure, and operational complexity. [1] 
•	Preserved Chemistry: It expands physical throughput capacity while relying on the exact same core microchannel chemistry and operational predictability as smaller models in the portfolio (AlphaCore 50, 200, and 400). [1] 

Would you like to know more about the microchannel engineering behind this reactor, or are you interested in the specific feedstocks (like municipal waste or biomass) that it can process into jet fuel?







 


Boeing’s Latest Software Glitch Delays The 737 MAX 10 And Draws Pushback From United And Southwest

Matthew Klint 
Posted onSeptember 29, 2026 

A new software problem has delayed certification of the Boeing 737 MAX 10, while United Airlines and Southwest Airlines have told Boeing they do not want new jets equipped with the affected software. For Boeing, it is another setback just as the long-awaited aircraft appeared close to approval.
FAA Delays Boeing 737 MAX 10 As United And Southwest Reject Jets With Troubled Software
The Federal Aviation Administration will hold off certifying the 737 MAX 10 while it reviews a problem with software used on some 737 MAX aircraft. The issue can leave pilots without automated flight guidance in a particular scenario after an aborted landing, increasing their workload at a moment when they already have plenty to do.
“We will be delaying the 10 until we’re satisfied that we don’t have an issue here,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford told reporters Monday. He did not give a new date for certification.

Boeing says it informed operators of the problem and is developing a software update. The FAA will convene a review board to determine whether the issue poses a safety risk.
United And Southwest Push Back On New Deliveries
United says that none of its current aircraft use the software version under review and that it is not accepting deliveries of aircraft equipped with it.

Southwest has also told Boeing it does not want new aircraft with the affected software and has requested an earlier version instead. Southwest says its current fleet, including new MAX 8 deliveries, does not use the version in question.

Thankfully, the 737 MAX already delivered in the air do not have this problem, and many not impact any planned deliveries if older software is used.

Southwest is waiting to take delivery of the recently certified MAX 7. United is among the airlines waiting for the larger MAX 10. The latest problem arrives at a particularly inconvenient moment for both carriers and for Boeing.
Another Delay For The MAX 10
I am happy to see the FAA take extra time to sort this out before certifying the airplane. Boeing says existing pilot procedures allow crews to handle the situation, and Bedford said pilots retain control of the aircraft. Those are reassuring points, but they do not justify the latest software snafu.

The frustrating part is how close Boeing seemed to be. The MAX 10 was widely expected to receive approval in October. Now the FAA cannot say whether the delay will be measured in days, weeks, or months.

And of course that’s bad new for airlines too: airline deliveries shape schedules, capacity, fleet retirement, and growth plans. The MAX 10 has been years in the making, and airlines like United still cannot count on when they will actually be able to put it to work…
CONCLUSION
The FAA is right to insist on an answer before approving the 737 MAX 10. United and Southwest are also right to question why they should accept new jets with software they do not want.

Boeing may be able to resolve this quickly…and I certainly hope it will. But until it does, the MAX 10 remains an aircraft airlines can plan around only with an asterisk. That is a familiar and increasingly costly position for a jet that was supposed to be nearing the finish line.






 


United and Southwest Ask Boeing for Older Software Amid 737 MAX Glitch

A cockpit software update on some Boeing 737 MAX jets can disrupt VNAV after a missed approach, while the FAA reviews the issue.

By Kevin Derby

September 28, 20263 Mins Read
ShareFollow Us

Google News

Photo: Aero Icarus | Flickr
SEATTLE— Boeing has identified a previously undisclosed software problem affecting some 737 MAX aircraft that could interrupt an automated flight-guidance function during a specific landing scenario.

The issue can emerge after a missed approach when pilots modify the aircraft’s planned route before attempting to land again.

The discovery has prompted a review by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while Boeing works on a permanent software fix.

United Airlines (UA) and Southwest Airlines (WN) have reportedly asked Boeing to provide new 737 MAX aircraft with an earlier software version instead of the affected update, although the number of aircraft currently using the software remains unclear.
Photo: United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby LinkedIn Page
Boeing 737 MAX Software Issue
The problem is connected to a cockpit software update and involves the aircraft’s automated navigation functions. In the reported scenario, a crew conducts a missed approach, changes the programmed flight path, and then attempts another landing.

Under certain conditions, the flight management computer can cause the vertical navigation function, known as VNAV, to disengage.

This can leave pilots without the affected automated guidance during a critical phase of the subsequent approach and increase the need for manual control.

Boeing said it informed 737 operators about the issue in August. The company said existing pilot procedures provide a way to handle the situation safely while its engineers develop a permanent software solution.

Photo: Boeing
FAA Reviews Risk

The FAA has confirmed that it is aware of the potential problem involving software installed on flight computers in certain 737 MAX aircraft.

The regulator said it is working with Boeing and airlines and will convene a Corrective Action Review Board to determine whether additional action is necessary.
Boeing has said the issue does not currently represent a safety risk.

The company is nevertheless developing an update to permanently address the software behavior, while regulators and operators assess how widely the affected version is being used.

The issue could also become relevant to Boeing’s ongoing 737 MAX development program.

Aviation Week reported that the software problem comes as Boeing prepares for further MAX milestones, including certification of the 737-10, although the eventual effect on those activities remains uncertain.

Airlines Seek Earlier Software
Southwest and United have reportedly requested that Boeing hold back deliveries of new 737 MAX jets equipped with the affected software.

The airlines instead sought aircraft carrying an earlier software version while the manufacturer works toward a permanent solution.

The latest issue comes amid continued regulatory attention on the 737 MAX program.
The type was globally grounded following the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes in 2018 and 2019, which together killed 346 people, while the January 2024 Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 door-plug blowout led to renewed scrutiny of Boeing’s aircraft production and safety processes.

The current software problem does not by itself mean that affected 737 MAX aircraft are unsafe to operate.

Boeing says pilots have established procedures for handling the scenario, while the FAA is assessing the issue and will determine whether further corrective action is required.
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






 


One of the greatest flying stories ever told

His spaceship’s brain died 100 miles above Earth. So he became the spaceship.

May 16, 1963. Gordon Cooper was alone in Faith 7 — a metal capsule barely larger than a phone booth — circling the planet at 17,500 miles per hour. Twenty-two orbits. Then the warnings started.

A faulty sensor said the capsule was falling. It wasn’t. He switched it off.

Then a short circuit killed the automated guidance system. The system that kept the ship oriented. The system that was supposed to bring him home.

Come in too shallow and the capsule skips off the atmosphere into the void. Come in too steep and it burns. The margin was fractions of a degree. Every computer built to hit that margin was dead.

Cooper didn’t panic.

He drew reference lines on his window with a grease pencil. 

He lined them up with the horizon. He used the stars he had memorized before launch. He set his wristwatch.

He did the math in his head. Held the angle by eye. And when the moment came, he fired the retrorockets himself.

The sky turned to fire. Plasma cut all communication. No radio. No radar. Just a man inside a fireball, trusting a pencil, a watch, and the stars.

Then the parachutes opened.

Faith 7 splashed down in the Pacific four miles from the recovery carrier — the most accurate landing in the Mercury program.

The last backup system was never the software.
It was him. 


Curt Lewis