The revolution in oil-powered general aviation is at least three years away

Happy National Aviation Day to those who celebrate.

One thing that you’d expect the Experimental Aircraft Association, with revenue of more than $60 million per year, to do is fund the development of new powerplants. There has never been any significant progress in aviation without first an improvement in engines. A low-power high-efficiency turbine engine, for example, would enable the creation of all kinds of dramatically superior aircraft. But none of the kit companies or even the certified four-seat aircraft companies can readily afford to invest what is required.

Enter Turbotech, a startup in the Islamic Republic of France. They say that they have a 140 hp turboprop engine that burns fuel at approximately the same rate as a 140 hp Rotax (piston) engine:

How long before this can be dropped into a certified airframe? The founders said that if everything goes perfect and nothing at all has to be changed in their current design, the engine could be EASA/FAA-certified in three years.

An analysis with some numbers (I disagree with the price discussion):

I don’t think it is Turbotech, but the Canadians claim to have a “turboshaft engine” in their Janus-I Flying Suitcase:

The ultimate license plate for light aircraft enthusiasts (a car parked at Oshkosh and, presumably, that will seen at Sun ‘n Fun in Lakeland, Florida in April:

Full post, including comments

Wright Brothers, 2SLGBTQQIA+, and Islam in Dayton, Ohio

We visited Dayton, Ohio on the way to Oshkosh this year, primarily to see the USAF Museum (see previous posts) but also to visit some of the Wright Brothers historical sites.

The place where the Wright Brothers did some of their earliest work in aeronautical engineering is preserved to some extent by the National Park Service, their final bicycle shop building having been purchased by Henry Ford and moved to Greenfield Village in the Islamic Republic of Dearborn, Michigan (represented in Congress by Rashida Tlaib). The sidewalk celebrates the Wright Brothers as well as the equally important Phyllis G. Bolds:

The museum celebrates the two Wright Brothers on equal footing with their friend Paul Dunbar (or maybe Paul Dunbar is 2X as important as either Orville or Wilbur individually since it is the “Wright-Dunbar Center” rather than the “Wright-Dunbar-Wright Center”?).

The Feds remind us not to forget Alice Dunbar Nelson, Paul Dunbar’s widow:

Here’s the neighborhood; note the $200,000+ G-Wagon in a city not famous for economic vibrance.

You can live in a brand-new (except for the shell?) 2BR, 3Ba condo in the neighborhood for about the same cost as the G-Wagon that was driving by.

Dayton is enriched by migrants according to an official city web page:

The city notes that “Between 2014 and 2019, the total population in the City of Dayton decreased by 0.2% while the immigrant population increased by +25.9% during the same time period.” In other words, the native-born population is shrinking while the migrant population is growing and, of course, it would be inaccurate to refer to this as a “replacement”.

After spending some time in a few of these Rust Belt cities I’ve come to the conclusion that the politicians who run them are passionate about immigrants because most of the native-born Americans who habitually work and pay taxes have moved to other parts of the country. The politicians hope that immigrants won’t be quick to figure out that the U.S. is a work-optional society and that these folks will pay taxes to replace the tax base lost to North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama. If the immigrants choose to refrain from work, on the other hand, the Rust Belt city can still thrive via the federal cash infusion of Medicaid, Section 8, and other programs (it would be inaccurate to refer to these as “welfare”, of course).

Dayton seems to have been significant enriched by Islamic migrants. We found Halal restaurants both in the city and suburbs. Google Maps shows a variety of mosques (masjids). The International Grocery Halal Market was near our hotel:

As part of Dayton’s commitment to welcoming these observant Muslim immigrants, much of the city was covered in sacred Rainbow Flags (July 13, shortly after Pride Month and Omnisexual Visibility Day and just before Non-Binary Awareness Week). Here is a sampling:

A restaurant flying the Biden-style trans-enhanced Rainbow Flag (note also the Black Lives Matter banner in front of the Black-free restaurant in a city where 38 percent of the residents told the Census Bureau that they identify as Black):

The field where the Wright Brothers did a lot of flight tests in 1904 and 1905 is preserved on the grounds on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (no need to drive through the base gates to see the sights, though). The locals funded a monument at the crediting the Wright Brothers with the invention of ailerons, which was the basis of their patent infringement lawsuits:

Here’s what our Google AI Overlord has to say on the subject:

Ailerons, used for controlling an aircraft’s roll, were first conceived by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1868, who patented a system of lateral control using movable wing surfaces. While Boulton’s design laid the groundwork, the Wright brothers are credited with pioneering the use of wing warping for roll control in their 1903 flights. However, the modern aileron, as a separate, hinged control surface, is generally attributed to Robert Esnault-Pelterie, who used them successfully in 1904. Legal battles over the invention and its patent rights ensued, but ailerons eventually became standard on aircraft, particularly after their widespread adoption during World War I.

The actual field is dotted with explanatory signs:

Although the city’s leaders value migrants, the prairie is preserved as special because it is “native”:

On our way out of town we found a world-class Mooney paint scheme:

Too bad that nearly all of today’s GA pilots are too fat to fit comfortable in this speedster!

Full post, including comments

EAA AirVenture (“Oshkosh”) Airshows 2025

The daily airshows (and two night shows) at EAA AirVenture this year were awesome as usual. The announcer pointed out that Philipp Steinbach was a remarkable exception to today’s division of labor. He’s the designer of the GB1 Gamebird. He’s the aerobatic demonstration pilot for the machine at airshows. He’s the founder and CEO of the company that builds the machine.

Minnesota governor and erstwhile Kamala Harris running mate Tim Walz contracted PTSD during his deployment to Italy. It’s fortunate that Mr. Walz wasn’t present during the Wisconsin National Guard’s demonstration of its F-35s, Black Hawks, and tankers all while blasting off artillery rounds (blanks, I hope!) every 15 seconds (the video below doesn’t capture the impact of the artillery sounds). If this is only one state’s Guard it would definitely be smarter for a foreign enemy to find a way to take over the U.S. other than via frontal assault (maybe have an army of soldiers walk across the southern border and claim asylum?).

It was great to have Randy Ball back with his MiG-17, whose afterburner is beautiful at dusk. Nathan Hammond in his Super Chipmunk was amazing in the night airshow with LEDs and fireworks coming off the windtips.

Australian Pitts pilot Paul Bennet was new and interesting:

Also in the Pitts and also new to AirVenture, the Northern Stars Aeroteam (strange choice of vertical video; trying to appeal to youngsters on their phones?):

Not new to AirVenture, but frightening to watch… Skip Stewart:

Rob Holland had been scheduled to perform, but instead there were various tributes to him from other performers. (Rob died in April due to a mechanical failure potentially attributable to a small modification made to his plane (FLYING).) Very sad.

The skies were so filled with warbird trainers that it was possible to get a decent photo even with an iPhone:

Blimps also make a decent iPhone airshow subject:

Full post, including comments

National Museum of the US Air Force, Hangar 3

All of the third building is devoted to the Cold War:

Highlights of this hangar include the 10-engine B-36 “Peacemaker” and more familiar but still awesome machines such as the B-1, the SR-71, and the U-2. The primary heroes of the Cold War identified as “women” (as the term was understood by the primitive people of the 1950s and 60s):

The Air Force reminds us that “women are responsible for countless discoveries and inventions” (e.g., female engineer Kelly Johnson of Lockheed who led the P-38, U-2, and SR-71 design teams). The next hangar in the tour (building 4) has many reminders of the terrible ideas perpetrated by the inferior sex. Here’s a Canadian flying saucer, for example, and the Goblin fighter that would be dropped from the B-36 Peacemaker to fight then would return to the bomber mothership.

Here’s another “parasite” idea:

Men also came up with some terrible tilt-rotor ideas:

The Cold War hangar also showcases the contributions of mighty piston-powered aircraft. Who knew that the USAF operated the Grumman Albatross?

Imagine bragging about being an Air Force pilot and then being exposed as trundling along at 100 knots in a Cessna 195 on floats!

Speaking of feeble piston-powered machines, what about the Cessna 172? The museum describes the plane’s heroic role on September 12, 2001, shortly after the successful jihad against the World Trade Center:

The uniform and “Nikon” of a C172-flying hero:

The museum highlights the heroism of other Civil Air Patrol officers:

For folks who love engineering, a cutaway F-86 (more relevant to the Korean War, but in the Cold War hangar):

Also in the Cold War hangar, though describing a 2019 event, the Air Force highlights its refusal to follow Sharia and its prohibition on females leading worship of Allah for mixed-gender groups:

There are some outdoor exhibits as well, including this “simulator” that simulates flying by… flying.

Full post, including comments

National Museum of the US Air Force, Hangar 2

Continuing our tour of the USAF Museum (post 1) in Dayton, Ohio…

The second hangar is devoted to the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Walking into the hangar we are immediately reminded that it was American women who did the heavy lifting in the Vietnam War:

Turning 180 degrees we find the Korean War exhibit. The floor signs remind us that, as of July 14, 2025, we’re still fighting our War Against SARS-CoV-2:

Our brave young warriors are also protected from COVID-19 by simple non-N95 cloth masks:

The Twin Mustang was our favorite plane on exhibit in this section:

Tough to believe that these were actually used in combat!

Progressive Democrats have complained about the sometimes-too-cold and sometimes-too-warm air conditioning situation in Florida’s Alligator Alcatraz, where noble undocumented migrants spend a few weeks in the UNESCO World Heritage treasure of the Everglades awaiting deportation. USAF pilots and mechanics deployed to Korea spent a year or more in tents without A/C or reasonable heat:

Returning to Vietnam, we lost the war because of failed political leadership:

Dogs and helicopters are appropriately recognized:

Full post, including comments

National Museum of the US Air Force, Hangar 1

We visited the National Museum of the US Air Force in Dayton, Ohio on our way to Oshkosh. This is a two-day museum if you want to read more than half of the signs and absorb the history and technical information that is being communicated (vastly more detail than at the Smithsonian Air and Space). The experience starts with words from President Nixon:

The curators are less prone to the Wright Brothers worship that pervades Dayton:

A Jenny is exhibited and also explained:

The museum seems to be run by a separate foundation so they’re perhaps not required to follow Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s orders to refrain from dividing military personnel according to victimhood group. The museum celebrates Eugene Bullard, for example, not for being a military aviator but for being the “first Black military aviator”:

The drones that have transformed today’s battlefield were initially developed in Dayton, Ohio during WWI:

Here’s the only surviving Martin B-10 1930s bomber, out of 348 built:

The other side of the first massive hangar is devoted to more familiar World War II aircraft. Visitors are reminded that it was women who fought and won the largest battles, e.g., against bias, of World War II:

Here’s a less-familiar Douglas B-18:

At least in the signage, there are few mixed feelings regarding the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan. The B-29 that devastated Nagasaki is on display:

On a more cheerful note, a PBY is painted with the rafts of the aviators rescued:

An original Me 262 is displayed along with a cutaway Jumo engine (note the Donald Trump/Elon Musk symbol on the tail):

The B-24 is named “Strawberry Bitch”. Maybe after someone got a bill for an annual on the four-engine machine?

The WWII hangar includes an original Mitsubishi Zero and this unusual Kamikaze trainer (one flight school that it would be great to fail out of!):

Full post, including comments

Should new neighborhoods include super drone zones?

eVTOL air taxis are a few years away, just as they were at Oshkosh 2018 (see Transitioning to electric flight (lectures at Oshkosh)). The static displays that appeared at Oshkosh 2025, e.g., Joby’s, seemed too large to fit comfortably into our car-oriented world. The U.S. population keeps growing, thanks to the miracle of immigration, and developers keep developing more suburban sprawl. Should each new reasonably elite neighborhood include a “super drone zone” where an eVTOL air taxi can land and depart without annoying or endangering anyone?

(Also, if eVTOLs start to work as advertised does that mean that the rulers of the U.S. will stop making any attempt to make surface transportation tolerable? If elites go everywhere by private air taxi why would they care that peasants must endure a Mumbai-/Delhi-like experience when they try to go somewhere by “surface car”?)

So that the zone need not be a fenced-off blight when not in use perhaps it could be a “smart LZ” in which a low perimeter fence of lights begins to flash when an eVTOL is inbound (i.e., the inbound eVTOL robot or human pilot can activate the “move away from the pad” lights). The same fence can be equipped with cameras and other sensors to detect the presence of humans and other obstacles and warn the eVTOL if the landing zone isn’t clear.

Here’s the Toyota-funded Joby in the new-for-2025 Toyota booth at EAA AirVenture:

(This was one of the places where I heard about the FAA’s new-since-November-2024 religion of productivity and consequent hope for certification.)

Note that the only electric aircraft that was apparently working well enough to be included in the daily airshow was BETA’s conventional (runwary-required) takeoff machine. (See A visit to BETA Technologies in Burlington, Vermont (eVTOL aircraft) for the 2023 status and BETA Technologies update from Oshkosh 2025.)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Garmin’s new big-screen TXi

Just before Oshkosh: “Garmin introduces its largest TXi touchscreen flight display yet”. If you want to spend $200,000 on an avionics upgrade to a -G2 Cirrus airplane that was worth $150,000 in pre-Biden dollars in pre-coronapanic times you can now get a 12″ display from Garmin. Did they fix the absurdly low 1280×768 resolution on the 10″ displays that made approach plates illegible unless the pilot wanted to remove his/her/zir/their right hand from the controls and pinch/pan to view different parts of the plate sequentially? It seems that Garmin’s latest and greatest 2025 display has the same resolution as the old one, i.e., 1280×768. This is the resolution that consumers got in 2014 from the Samsung Galaxy Mega 2 ($150 pre-Biden dollars).

How does it look? (ignore the red bands, which are artifacts from the camera/display interaction)

I guess the theory is that the Garmin autopilot is so good the pilot doesn’t have anything better to do than pinch/zoom/pan.

The same company, for a little more than 1/100th the price, introduced a “smart buoy” that keeps track of SCUBA divers (press release). I can’t figure out why it is so difficult to deliver 1080p resolution (1920×1280) to aviation customers.

Full post, including comments

BETA Technologies update from Oshkosh 2025

BETA Technologies had a busy pavilion at EAA AirVenture (“Oshkosh”) this year. I last wrote about them in 2023: A visit to BETA Technologies in Burlington, Vermont (eVTOL aircraft).

The company’s “CTOL” aircraft was on display in a spacious six-seat configuration. It can supposedly travel 150 nm with a reasonable reserve (215 nm absolute range) with all six seats occupied. An efficient cruise speed is a Robinson R44-style 105 knots. Against a typical headwind maybe the range is more like 130 nm. Make sure not to run out of battery power because the stall speed is 80 knots, which would mean hitting the ground at over 100 mph.

BETA plans to certify the aircraft under FAR 23, which limits single-engine aircraft to a stall speed of 61 knots unless the manufacturer can demonstrate above-and-beyond crashworthiness. This has been stretched to 67 knots by a couple of companies, e.g., Cirrus for the Vision Jet and Pilatus for the PC-12, but nobody has ever gone anywhere near 80 knots. If the BETA has only one propeller how can it get FAR 23 certification? Maybe the answer is that the single propeller/motor combination has two independent motors internally? Thus, the aircraft could actually be considered a centerline twin?

The actual plane at the event has accumulated 250 hours. The pilots who’ve flown it say that it is quiet enough that they remove their headsets when in cruise (electric engine in the back). An air conditioner is coming soon. Finally we might have an aircraft as comfortable as a Honda Odyssey?

(The tail number is N916LF in memory of Lochie Ferrier, a young MIT graduate and former BETA employee who died in a homebuilt aircraft accident in January 2024. We don’t yet have a final NTSB report, but there appears to have been a power loss in a piston engine that may have been unrelated to the aircraft’s experimental status. 9/16 was Lochie’s birthday.)

The vehicle is huge. If a conventional airframe company built this it would have to sell for $3 million just to pay for the aluminum and carbon fiber construction.

How are the legacy piston-powered companies responding to this innovation? A new paint scheme at the Cirrus pavilion:

Full post, including comments

Defeating stealth aircraft with infrared sensors

EAA AirVenture (“Oshkosh”) opens today so it is time for an aviation-themed post…

The F-35 played a role early in the recent fighting between Israel and Iran, but after air defenses were neutralized, Israel bombed targets using older non-stealth fighters. From Topgun: An American Story, by Dan Pederson, one of the founders of the Navy Fighter Weapons School:

One question deserves to be whether we even need such expensive capabilities as stealth in our planes. I’m not so sure. New sensors that are within the current capability of Russia and China to field don’t even use radar waves. These infrared search-and-track devices can detect the friction heat of an aircraft’s skin moving through the atmosphere, as well as disturbances in airflow.

Maybe the cost-effective approach is to use drones to perform all of the attacks against an adversary’s air defenses and then send in legacy aircraft? The author says that we can’t afford to provide human fighter pilots with enough combat hours to stay proficient, which is another great argument for AI/drones:

At Topgun in my day, a pilot had to log a minimum of thirty-five to forty flight hours every month to be considered combat-ready. This is no longer possible. As the F-35 continues to swallow up the money available to naval aviation, the low rate of production all but ensures that our pilots will not soon gain the flight hours that they need to get good. For the past few years Super Hornet pilots have been getting just ten to twelve hours per month between deployments—barely enough to learn to fly the jet safely. The F-35 has far less availability. Its pilots have to rely on simulators to make up the deficit. Its cost per flight hour is exorbitant.

There are quite a few reminders in the book of the high cost of war against a near-peer, e.g., in Vietnam:

What else is in the book? Here’s a passage that can be used by the pro-open-borders folks:

My parents were immigrants and I was a first-generation American. Dad, named Orla or Ole, was born in Denmark in 1912 and his parents, Olaf and Mary Pedersen, immigrated the next year. My mother, Henrietta, was one of three beautiful sisters from the Isle of Man.

Immigrants, regardless of which society they come from, make the best Americans.

Serving in the Navy is a bad idea for anyone who wants to be a parent:

One night I was aboard ship, ready to take my first ship command, when I got a phone call. Somehow my eight-year-old son had found my direct number. I answered. He was crying. He begged me not to leave. “Please, Dad. Come back… everyone else has a dad home with them. I don’t.”

It worked okay, apparently, in the pre-no-fault (unilateral) divorce world, but it seems that Navy wives eventually turn plaintiff if the officer-pilot doesn’t get killed in an accident or combat. The author himself seems to have been sued by two wives:

My first marriage did not survive the many deployments of the 1970s. Being gone so much finally drove a wedge between us that could not be removed. I married a second time while serving in surface ships. Ever the optimist, I guess. It wasn’t meant to be.

The Vietnam war wasn’t winnable from the air for a variety of reasons:

Afraid of escalating the war, the Johnson administration refused to sanction attacks on Haiphong Harbor or the shipping there. As we started flying missions up north, we would pass near those cargo ships as they waited their turn to offload at the docks. We could see their decks crammed with weatherized MiGs and surface-to-air missiles that would shortly be used against us. But we couldn’t hit them. And we couldn’t mine the harbor, either. What a tragedy. The simple execution of an off-the-shelf aerial mining plan, long before perfected during World War II and carried out in three days, could have shut down that big port—the only one of its kind in North Vietnam. But the word from the White House was no. Those big surface-to-air missiles, as large as telephone poles, would spear up into the sky after our aircraft, homing on their radar signatures. They took a heavy toll. We could seldom bomb the missile sites for fear we might kill their Russian advisers.

When the North Vietnamese began flying Russian-and Chinese-built MiG fighters, the Navy and Air Force asked Washington for permission to bomb their airfields. The request was denied. Categories of targets that could not be struck under any circumstances included dams, hydroelectric plants, fishing boats, sampans, and houseboats. They also included, significantly, populated areas. Seeing the military value of these restrictions, the North Vietnamese placed most of their SAM support facilities and other valuable cargo near Hanoi and Haiphong—places we were forbidden to strike. The airfields around Hanoi became sanctuaries for the MiGs; the commander in chief of U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, who had overall responsibility for the air war, urged the Joint Chiefs of Staff to lift the crippling restrictions. Meanwhile, the enemy fighter pilots could sit on their runways in their planes without fear of attack, waiting to scramble when our bombers showed up.

Postwar research suggests that Hanoi occasionally received updated target lists about the same time we did on Yankee Station. Our own State Department passed the list to North Vietnamese via the Swiss government in hopes that Hanoi would evacuate civilians from the target areas. Of course they cared little about that. They simply used the valuable intel to duck the next onslaught, moving MiGs out of harm’s way and bolstering antiaircraft artillery and surface-to-air missile batteries in the target areas for good measure. Destroying the MiGs on the ground proved difficult enough, but we were also ordered not to attack them in the air unless they could be visually identified and posed a direct threat.

Those rules of engagement negated the way we had trained to fight in the air. The value of our F-4 Phantoms was their ability to destroy enemy planes from beyond visual range. The AIM-7 Sparrow was the ultimate expression of that new way of fighting. Track and lock with the radar system, loose the missile from ten miles out, and say goodbye to a MiG. This is how the Navy trained us to fight. We abandoned dogfight training because of the Navy’s faith in missile technology. Most of our aircrews didn’t know how to fight any other way. Yet our own rules of engagement kept us from using what we were taught. The rules of engagement specifically prohibited firing from beyond visual range. To shoot a missile at an aircraft, a fighter pilot first needed to visually confirm it was a MiG and not a friendly plane. The thought of inadvertent or accidental shootdown of our brothers was of course intolerable. It did happen, sadly, in the heat of combat. Yet three years along, the training squadron in California was still teaching long-range intercept tactics to the exclusion of everything else. Our training was not applicable to the air war in Vietnam.

Assumptions used in engineering turn out to be wrong:

The MiG-17 was a nimble fighter armed with cannons, but no missiles. It was old school, derived from the lessons the Soviets learned in the Korean War. With such a plane, the North Vietnamese needed to get in close and track our planes with their gunsights. They would sometimes wait to open fire on us until they were within six hundred feet. Here we were, trained to knock planes down at ten miles. The F-4 carried only missiles; it did not have an internal gun because contractors and the Pentagon believed the age of the dogfight was over. We brought our expensive high tech into this knife fight in a phone booth. The result? The MiG pilots scored a lot more heavily than they should have.

And the engineering didn’t work:

Over Vietnam, our Sparrow missiles usually malfunctioned or missed. So did the AIM-9 Sidewinders. How could we not have known this prior to 1965? Well, history repeats: The weapons were so expensive that the Navy could not afford to use them in training. Live-fire shooting was done against drones flying straight and level, like an unsuspecting bomber might be caught doing. We didn’t know we had a problem until the weapons had to be deployed against fighters.

Politicians in Washington, D.C. managed to convince themselves that everything was going great:

We had to find a way to win in spite of these technical problems and political interference. Robert McNamara was a numbers guy. Under him, the Pentagon measured success in the ground war by the body count. In the air, the metric was the number of sorties flown over North Vietnam. One sortie equals one plane flying one mission. A ten-plane raid resulted in ten sorties. This became a delusional world. A sortie counted in the total even if our bombers were forced to dump their payloads short of the target, which often happened when MiGs appeared.

Is Trump the first president to give an adversary (Iran) a safe space? No:

At the end of March, in a speech declaring that he would not run for reelection in November, Lyndon Johnson changed the entire dynamic of the air war. He announced an immediate suspension of all bombing attacks north of the 20th parallel. Just like that, Rolling Thunder was over, neutralized by a lame-duck president. Up until then, the MiGs had been forced to operate from China, reducing their effectiveness. When LBJ told the world where we would not be bombing anymore, he essentially told the North Vietnamese we were giving their fighter regiments a safe space again. At the same time, the new restrictions greatly reduced the Air Force’s role in the air war over North Vietnam. The onus to continue it fell on the Navy.

I might print this out and tape it to the panel of the Cirrus SR20 to look at when I’m complaining about the lack of air conditioning:

Some time later, leading a strike mission at low altitude, Skank Remsen took a rifle round through the cockpit, straight through both thighs. He took his leg restraints, slid them up both legs, cinched them tight, and used them as tourniquets. He then flew one hundred and fifty miles and successfully landed aboard the carrier. Flight deck medical staff got him out of the airplane and rushed him to surgery. He refused medical evacuation to a stateside hospital and remained on board to heal. Two weeks later that tough old hombre was back in the saddle, flying combat missions with his boys. Now that’s my idea of real leadership.

Trigger warning: Nobody from Harvard or Columbia should read this book.

The Mediterranean, home of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, became a powder keg on October 6[, 1973]. That was the day our Israeli friends awoke to the greatest crisis of their lives: an imminent Arab invasion. The nation of Israel responded to that gathering storm with a massive preemptive strike. When the Yom Kippur War started, I was at Norfolk with the Dogs. All I could do was hope my Israeli friends, Eitan Ben Eliyahu and Dan Halutz and the rest of them, were out there knocking MiGs down and laying waste to ground targets.

The author eventually was promoted to command an aircraft carrier. The challenge of managing disgruntled and/or drug-addicted personnel turned out to be enormous. His Navy career ended when a sailor died and Michigan senators Carl Levin and Donald Riegle (both Democrats) faulted Pederson’s management of the ship.

A young airman named Paul Trerice collapsed and died while we were in Subic Bay about three weeks after we rescued the refugees. … The ship had just returned from a five-day visit to Hong Kong, where he was an unauthorized absentee. He was next in the CCU that April of 1981. My understanding from

Full post, including comments