The Airplane Thread

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Chinese manufacturer Xi'an developed and is now producing a "heavy" airlifter, the Y-20 -- as well as a transport/refueler version designated the YY-20.

So far 95 aircraft are in service, but far more are predicted to be on the way.

By comparison with the C-17, the Y-20's max takeoff weight is about 100,000 lbs less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi%27an_Y-20

Soooooo..... A Herc with turbofans and a t-tail!

R.

[JJ 911SC]

.

[flybigjet]

So--

The latest theories are either an impact by a meteorite or space debris:

https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/20...oogle_vignette

United Airlines 737 MAX Pilot Injured As Mysterious Object Cracks Windshield

Unusual cockpit damage during United flight UA1093 sparks investigation into possible space debris impact.

CHICAGO- A United Airlines (UA) Boeing 737 MAX 8 flight from Denver (DEN) to Los Angeles (LAX) was forced to divert to Salt Lake City (SLC) after a cracked windshield was discovered midair. The incident occurred on October 16, 2025, during flight UA1093, carrying 140 passengers and crew.

According to reports, the aircraft descended from 36,000 to 26,000 feet before safely landing at Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). Passengers were later rebooked on a replacement Boeing 737 MAX 9 to complete their journey to Los Angeles with a six-hour delay.

The diversion itself wasn’t unusual—windshield cracks, though uncommon, are known occurrences. What makes this case stand out are the details surrounding the cause.

As reported by OMAAT, images shared online by JonNYC appear to show scorch marks on the windshield and bruising on the pilot’s arm, suggesting a high-energy impact rather than a simple structural crack.

While on a cruise at 36,000 feet, the United flight was approximately 200 miles southeast of Salt Lake City when the crew noticed the damage.

The pilots promptly initiated a descent to 26,000 feet and diverted to the nearest suitable airport. The aircraft, registered as N17327, landed safely on runway 16L—exactly matching the course indicator visible in one of the shared cockpit images.

Speculation About Space Debris or Meteorite

Aviation enthusiasts have speculated that the cause could have been space debris or a small meteorite, based on the scorch patterns and impact marks. Although these claims remain unverified, they highlight an exceptionally rare scenario.

Typically, aircraft windshields are designed to withstand significant bird strikes and pressure changes, but impacts from high-speed debris traveling at orbital velocities are almost unheard of in commercial aviation.

No official confirmation has been made regarding the source of the damage. United Airlines has not reported any injuries beyond the pilot’s minor bruising, and the incident remains under investigation.
Routine Event Turns Extraordinary

Under normal conditions, a cracked windshield would prompt a standard diversion and inspection, often resulting from temperature fluctuations or minor mechanical stress. In this case, however, the presence of visible burn marks adds a layer of mystery that aviation authorities are expected to examine closely.

Regardless of the cause, the crew’s response was by the book—prompt, controlled, and prioritizing safety. Passengers were eventually flown to Los Angeles without further issues, marking a safe conclusion to a highly unusual situation.

[vreihen16]

Last Wednesday, a VIP transport C-32 (Boeing 757) en route from a NATO meeting in Belgium back to the USA had to turn around over Ireland due to a windshield crack, landing at an RAF base in the UK.....

https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-p...24af762c08e714

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

So--

The latest theories are either an impact by a meteorite or space debris:

https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/20...oogle_vignette

United Airlines 737 MAX Pilot Injured As Mysterious Object Cracks Windshield

Unusual cockpit damage during United flight UA1093 sparks investigation into possible space debris impact.

CHICAGO- A United Airlines (UA) Boeing 737 MAX 8 flight from Denver (DEN) to Los Angeles (LAX) was forced to divert to Salt Lake City (SLC) after a cracked windshield was discovered midair. The incident occurred on October 16, 2025, during flight UA1093, carrying 140 passengers and crew.

According to reports, the aircraft descended from 36,000 to 26,000 feet before safely landing at Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). Passengers were later rebooked on a replacement Boeing 737 MAX 9 to complete their journey to Los Angeles with a six-hour delay.

The diversion itself wasn’t unusual—windshield cracks, though uncommon, are known occurrences. What makes this case stand out are the details surrounding the cause.

As reported by OMAAT, images shared online by JonNYC appear to show scorch marks on the windshield and bruising on the pilot’s arm, suggesting a high-energy impact rather than a simple structural crack.

While on a cruise at 36,000 feet, the United flight was approximately 200 miles southeast of Salt Lake City when the crew noticed the damage.

The pilots promptly initiated a descent to 26,000 feet and diverted to the nearest suitable airport. The aircraft, registered as N17327, landed safely on runway 16L—exactly matching the course indicator visible in one of the shared cockpit images.

Speculation About Space Debris or Meteorite

Aviation enthusiasts have speculated that the cause could have been space debris or a small meteorite, based on the scorch patterns and impact marks. Although these claims remain unverified, they highlight an exceptionally rare scenario.

Typically, aircraft windshields are designed to withstand significant bird strikes and pressure changes, but impacts from high-speed debris traveling at orbital velocities are almost unheard of in commercial aviation.

No official confirmation has been made regarding the source of the damage. United Airlines has not reported any injuries beyond the pilot’s minor bruising, and the incident remains under investigation.
Routine Event Turns Extraordinary

Under normal conditions, a cracked windshield would prompt a standard diversion and inspection, often resulting from temperature fluctuations or minor mechanical stress. In this case, however, the presence of visible burn marks adds a layer of mystery that aviation authorities are expected to examine closely.

Regardless of the cause, the crew’s response was by the book—prompt, controlled, and prioritizing safety. Passengers were eventually flown to Los Angeles without further issues, marking a safe conclusion to a highly unusual situation.

Awww.... That'll probably buff right out! Slap some Flex Seal on it and it's good to go!

[Llarry]

The most capable transport aircraft in U.S. Air Force service is the C-5M Super Galaxy. 131 earlier C-5A and C-5B Galaxy aircraft were delivered beginning in the late 1960s, and 52 of those were modified to C-5M standard around the turn of the century. There are a number of outsized loads that only the C-5 can handle.

In an era when B-52 heavy bombers, for instance, can remain in service for 80-plus years, it may be premature to speculate on the future of USAF heavy lift. Still, it is likely that the C-5 will require replacement at some point in the future. Would an even larger transport give the Air Force even more capability? It is probably too early to tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Still, it is likely that the C-5 will require replacement at some point in the future.

When our local ANG was flying them, I remember local news articles about how they were poaching parts and tires off of planes on the line to keep others flying due to those parts no longer being available. That was actually the rationale for switching the local ANG out to newer C-17's at the time.....

[M-technik-3]

Don't believe that Can Bird's are still in effect. They were for years but I believe that process has ceased.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Don't believe that Can Bird's are still in effect. They were for years but I believe that process has ceased.

...because our ANG's former C-5's are now supplying parts for the units still flying them?????

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

...because our ANG's former C-5's are now supplying parts for the units still flying them?????

Nope.

You'd think it would work that way, but it doesn't.

The Boneyarded C--5's are just turned into beer cans. No parts are pulled off.

It's insane. I flew a C-5 into the Boneyard when we were essentially zero-balance anywhere in the system for windshields, ALDCS computers and the ADI's.

NONE of the parts were salvaged off of the jet, despite a critical need for them. It's just how the government works.

R.

[BMWGUYinCO]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

So--

The latest theories are either an impact by a meteorite or space debris:

https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/20...oogle_vignette

United Airlines 737 MAX Pilot Injured As Mysterious Object Cracks Windshield

Unusual cockpit damage during United flight UA1093 sparks investigation into possible space debris impact.

CHICAGO- A United Airlines (UA) Boeing 737 MAX 8 flight from Denver (DEN) to Los Angeles (LAX) was forced to divert to Salt Lake City (SLC) after a cracked windshield was discovered midair. The incident occurred on October 16, 2025, during flight UA1093, carrying 140 passengers and crew.

According to reports, the aircraft descended from 36,000 to 26,000 feet before safely landing at Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). Passengers were later rebooked on a replacement Boeing 737 MAX 9 to complete their journey to Los Angeles with a six-hour delay.

The diversion itself wasn’t unusual—windshield cracks, though uncommon, are known occurrences. What makes this case stand out are the details surrounding the cause.

As reported by OMAAT, images shared online by JonNYC appear to show scorch marks on the windshield and bruising on the pilot’s arm, suggesting a high-energy impact rather than a simple structural crack.

While on a cruise at 36,000 feet, the United flight was approximately 200 miles southeast of Salt Lake City when the crew noticed the damage.

The pilots promptly initiated a descent to 26,000 feet and diverted to the nearest suitable airport. The aircraft, registered as N17327, landed safely on runway 16L—exactly matching the course indicator visible in one of the shared cockpit images.

Speculation About Space Debris or Meteorite

Aviation enthusiasts have speculated that the cause could have been space debris or a small meteorite, based on the scorch patterns and impact marks. Although these claims remain unverified, they highlight an exceptionally rare scenario.

Typically, aircraft windshields are designed to withstand significant bird strikes and pressure changes, but impacts from high-speed debris traveling at orbital velocities are almost unheard of in commercial aviation.

No official confirmation has been made regarding the source of the damage. United Airlines has not reported any injuries beyond the pilot’s minor bruising, and the incident remains under investigation.
Routine Event Turns Extraordinary

Under normal conditions, a cracked windshield would prompt a standard diversion and inspection, often resulting from temperature fluctuations or minor mechanical stress. In this case, however, the presence of visible burn marks adds a layer of mystery that aviation authorities are expected to examine closely.

Regardless of the cause, the crew’s response was by the book—prompt, controlled, and prioritizing safety. Passengers were eventually flown to Los Angeles without further issues, marking a safe conclusion to a highly unusual situation.

The latest information I've come across is suggesting it hit a weather balloon...

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by BMWGUYinCO

The latest information I've come across is suggesting it hit a weather balloon...

Does the military still think that we're stupid enough to fall for that Roswell weather balloon story in 2025?????

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

The Boneyarded C--5's are just turned into beer cans. No parts are pulled off.

It's insane. I flew a C-5 into the Boneyard when we were essentially zero-balance anywhere in the system for windshields, ALDCS computers and the ADI's.

I did some web reading about the local ANG's C-5 operations. They were all A-models, one being tail number 0001. This made them one of the first recipients of C-17's, as the A-models were scrapped. Probably why they were borrowing parts locally near the end to keep planes flying.

While you criticize the government for doing stupid things, they did one thing with our local ANG that saved them a small fortune. After the A-models had left the nest here, there were plenty of certified C-5 ground techs that had nothing to do. The Air Force had 49 of the 52 planes in the global fleet upgraded from B to M models flown from Lockheed Martin's refurb straight to our ANG base, where our local crews did the complete interior restoration and upgrades. Interesting reading.....

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/10...t-full-circle/

https://dmna.ny.gov/pressroom/?id=1540989804

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

While you criticize the government for doing stupid things.....

I spent 27 years flying the C-5 and retired #1 in the AF regarding time in the jet. I spent a good part of my career banging my head against the wall and being told that "I didn't understand the big picture" when I tried to explain why something was stupid and/or wasteful. Sometimes I won, but more often I lost. And the reasons were usually incomprehensible to me or were attributed to it being "too hard" to do it the right (i.e. cost-saving) way.

There is no rational way that I can think of to justify just junking the boneyarded C-5's without stripping every single useful part off of them. We could have increased our supply pool of available parts dramatically-- which would have *directly* improved both the mission capability rates and war fighting capabilities of the jet.

But, instead of recovering and reusing parts THAT WERE ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS, it was considered "easier" to just "award another government contract" to buy/build additional parts that we *literally* just threw away.

So. Corruption at its finest.

You're damn right I'm criticizing them.

R.

[Llarry]

U.S. air-to-air missiles

The American development of air-to-air missiles (AAMs) began just after World War II. Both the Army Air Forces (soon to be the Air Force) and the Navy began development in 1946.

The Air Force was first out of the gate, conducting a test of the AIM-4 Falcon in 1949. The Falcon was a small missile with a launch weight of just 120 pounds (later 135 pounds) and was designed for use in downing Soviet heavy bombers coming over the North Pole to attack North America. It became operational in 1956 and was used by Air Defense Command interceptors like the F-89 Scorpion, F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dart and F-106 Delta Dagger. The AIM-4 used semiactive radar homing -- the firing aircraft would illuminate the target with its radar, and the missile would home on the reflected energy.

The AIM-4 had a max range of about 6 miles. Later in its career, the USAF used the missile in Vietnam with poor results. The Falcon's systems were optimized for bombers on a steady course and the air combat maneuvering environment proved difficult. The Air Force ended up adopting the Navy's AIM-9 Sidewinder missile instead. The AIM-4 was retired in 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4_Falcon

The AIM-9 Sidewinder began development in the 1940s as well but was not test-fired until 1952. Initial models became operational in 1956. The Sidewinder was an infrared-guided missile that homed on the hot exhaust of an enemy aircraft's engine. It was limited to clear weather use only and the earliest models had a range of only about a mile. The missile had to be pointed at the target exhaust before firing.

Early Sidewinders weighed about 150 pounds at launch, but the AIM-9 was greatly improved over the succeeding decades, and current missiles weigh 190 pounds.

The AIM-9 has the distinction of being the first AAM to down an enemy aircraft. The 1950s saw Chinese Communist and Nationalist fighters tussling over the Taiwan Strait and in September 1958 a Nationalist F-86F Sabre downed a Communist MiG with a Sidewinder loaned from the U.S. Navy. At about the same time, a MiG was hit by an AIM-9 that did not explode; it returned to base with the American missile lodged in the fuselage. Predictably, that missile ended up in Soviet hands and was reverse-engineered and widely used in Warsaw Pact and other nations as the K-13 (NATO AA-2 "Atoll").

Many generations of Sidewinders have seen service. Later versions had greatly increased speed and range (up to 22 miles) and can be fired while not pointed at the target. The latest AIM-9X has thrust vectoring for increased agility and smaller control surfaces.

The Sidewinder has also been adapted for shipboard or ground forces air defense. The latter is used by the U.S. Army as the MIM-72 Chaparral.

The Sidewinder remains in production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder

Lagging behind the Sidewinder was a larger Navy semiactive radar homing AIM-7 Sparrow missile. The AIM-7 was first test-fired in 1952 and became operational on radar-equipped Navy fighters in 1958. It weighed 500 pounds at launch and at first had a range of 5 miles. Over the years it too was improved, and late models could reach targets almost 40 miles away in all weather and beyond visual range.

The problem is that an aircraft launching a missile BVR must be sure that the target is enemy. This issue has bedeviled AAMs all along.

The AIM-7 was adopted by the Air Force as well and has been used by a great number of nations. Both the UK and Italy designed improved versions using other names. In addition, the Navy adapted the Sparrow to shipboard use as a surface to air missile designated RIM-7.

The AIM-7 was replaced by the AIM-120 AMRAAM (see below) and was retired when the F-14 Tomcat was retired about twenty years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow

The Navy was concerned about cruise missile attacks on carrier groups and around 1960 began development of a large long-range missile to counter such attacks. The result was the AIM-54 Phoenix AAM with a radar in the nose to guide it to the target. The AIM-54 launch weight was just under 1,000 pounds and it was only carried by the F-14 Tomcat. Early models had a range of 70 miles, while late versions extended that to 100 miles. Of note, the Phoenix would climb at very high altitude after launch (100,000 ft or so) and then descend to the target during the terminal phase. Given the possibility of massed attacks by Soviet land-based missile carriers, there was consideration given to a version with a nuclear warhead. The AIM-54 was retired in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix

The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-range AAM (AMRAAM) was developed to replace the AIM-7 Sparrow. Like the AIM-54, the AIM-120 has its own radar to home in on the target, but in a much more compact form. The AIM-120 weighs about 355 pounds at launch. The range of the early AIM-120A, which became operational in 1991, was about 40 miles, but current AIM-120C and D variants can reach over 85 miles.
Like the Sparrow and Sidewinder, the AIM-120 is used by many air forces. Late models have smaller control surfaces to allow internal carriage in the F-22 and F-35 fighters. It remains in production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

The Navy has adapted a ship-launched surface-to-air-missile to air launch as a very large, long range AAM -- the AIM-174B Gunslinger. The AIM-174 has recently become operational and is carried by F-18Es and Fs. It has a launch weight of 1,900 pounds and a range of 250 miles or more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-174B_Gunslinger

A joint Air Force/Navy missile to supplement the AIM-120 AMRAAM is the AIM-260 Joint Tactical Air Missile (JTAM), which has just become operational or will shortly become so. The AIM-260 is a highly classified special access program, so few details are available. It is designed for internal carriage by the F-22 and F-35, so is likely about the same size as the AIM-120. It probably has even greater range that the latest AMRAAM.

Note that the designations for missiles changed in 1962; to avoid confusion I've used the post-1962 designations throughout.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

I spent 27 years flying the C-5 and retired #1 in the AF time in the jet. I spent a good part of my career banging my head against the wall and being told that "I didn't understand the big picture" when I tried to explain why something was stupid and/or wasteful. Sometimes I won, but usually I lost. And the reasons were usually incomprehensible to me or were attributed to it being "too hard" to do it the right (i.e. cost-saving) way.

There is no rational way that I can think of to justify just junking the boneyarded C-5's without stripping every single useful part off of them. We could have increased our supply pool of available parts dramatically-- which would have *directly* improved both the mission capability rates and war fighting capabilities of the jet.

But, instead of recovering and reusing parts THAT WERE ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS, it was considered "easier" to just run another "government contract" to buy/build additional parts that we *literally* just threw away.

So. Corruption at its finest.

You're damn right I'm criticizing them.

R.

Exactly...21 years Flying around in Fred and 10 working in the Logistics system before that. The amount of mismanagement and poor allocations of funding and so forth is why our budget is so crazy.

C-17 project was supposed to be a 130/141 replacement but it had to be modified for fuel economy I used to fly with a refueling to cross the Alantic and two for Pacific legs.

The made the C5 fleet slow down our Cruise speed to make the C17 look better as well. We could go on and on about our old decrepit jet how it grew into a swawn from a pig.

[vreihen16]

The USAF had one of their newest airplanes (OA-1K Skyraider II) crash in an Oklahoma field a few days ago, taking down a utility pole, stop sign, and street sign. Both pilot and civilian contractor occupants walked away uninjured. There's a certain irony about a converted crop duster crashing in a farm field.....

https://www.twz.com/air/air-forces-c...lands-in-field

(File photo of OA-1K, not the crashed plane)

[vreihen16]

.

[M-technik-3]

And at one point we had the Skyraider. And we are now retiring an out of Date A-10C with new wings and new electronics that it is now capable of communicating with the fast movers.

[freakystyly]

Bit slow today at work... just checking out flightradar24 and noticed the most popular aircraft was the NASA X59. It's currently doing a flight north of LA out of Palmdale.

I don't see it posted anywhere but is this it's first official flight?

Circling around at 12k' at 220kts

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

bit slow today at work... Just checking out flightradar24 and noticed the most popular aircraft was the nasa x59. It's currently doing a flight north of la out of palmdale.

n859na

abc9f4

[SpeedBuggy]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

Bit slow today at work... just checking out flightradar24 and noticed the most popular aircraft was the NASA X59. It's currently doing a flight north of LA out of Palmdale.

I don't see it posted anywhere but is this it's first official flight?

Circling around at 12k' at 220kts

Maiden Flight, damn thing gotta 632 million dollar price tag. 🤑