AAHS Logo  American Aviation Historical Society

1956 - 2023, Celebrating over 65+ Years of Service

Back CoverInside FrontInside Back

Excerpts from
AAHS Journal, Vol. 65, No. 3 - Fall 2020
Table of Contents

Vultee V-1A, the “Pullman” Aircraft

When built in 1933, the Vultee V-1A was the fastest plane available in the commercial aircraft market, but the great career that presented itself ended up being too short. The appearance of several competing models and a change in air traffic regulation quickly terminated the yet promising prospects of this beautiful aircraft.

Born in Brooklyn at the turn of the 20th century, Gerard Freebairn Vultee, better known as Jerry Vultee, was 21 when he moved his family thousands of miles to California. He entered the very famous California Institute of Technology (CalTech) with the aim of decreasing the expense of obtaining an engineering degree in aeronautics, and then getting hired by one of the many aircraft manufacturers settled on the west coast. In 1923, diploma in hand, Vultee did not remain unemployed for long. It was Art Mankey, then engineering manager at Douglas Aircraft, who hired him as engineer in aircraft structures. This is where he met a certain John Knudsen Northrop who, along with Vance Breese, was thinking about a single engine commercial monoplane project. At the time Douglas was focused primarily on several military programs and was not interested pursuing Northrop’s design. As a result, a frustrated Northrop left Douglas with his project in hand.

Northrop was hired by Alan Loughead, whose business would soon take the name of Lockheed – easier to say. But Jack Northrop did not stay long and his position was filled by Jerry Vultee. Appointed as chief engineer of the young Burbank business, Vultee attacked, at the request of Charles Lindbergh, designing a new plane. This was the splendid Sirius with whom the winner of the Atlantic and his wife made several very prominent journeys. But these activities were not sufficient for ensure the sustainability of the business. In 1929, this situation resulted in the takeover of Lockheed by Detroit Aircraft Corp. Richard Von Hake then assumed the post of chief engineer, which Vultee had been holding. The displaced Vultee accepted . . . .

Vultee V-1A departing Grand Central Terminal

Cliff Henderson: Visionary Leader

Southern California aircraft industry leaders, aware that aviation shows promoted flying and their products, began laying the groundwork to hold a sizable aviation event in Los Angeles. A group of the city’s manufacturers attended the Detroit All-American Aircraft Show in mid-April of 1927 and the National Air Races held at Spokane, Washington’s Felts Field in the fall. The attendance, aerial performances, and arrival of the closely watched transcontinental racers proved to be sensational. They returned home convinced that they could fortify the city’s reputation as the aeronautical center of the country by hosting the 1928 National Air Races. This status was not without merit. Los Angeles County claimed 30% of the air activity in the United States and 60% of the nation’s aviation personnel.

The first action the industry leaders took was to establish the California Air Race Association, a non-profit corporation sanctioned by the National Aeronautical Association (NAA). Banker Theodore T. Hull; Harry H. Wetzel, vice-president of Douglas Aircraft Corp.; D.E. McDaneld, owner of a Pasadena Packard Motor Car dealership; Robert J. Pritchard, Editor of Western Flying; Dr. T.C. Young, Director of the California Development Association; and Dudley M. Steele, Manager of Richfield Oil’s Department of Aviation made up the association’s officers and board. All were pilots and donated their time and experience without compensation. By the end of 1927, the association submitted an application to the NAA to host the 1928 National Air Races. A date was chosen to coincide with the year’s best predicted weather.

The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce published a booklet highlighting the benefits of Southern California as an enticement to select the city’s bid. “Los Angeles County probably offers more to aviation than any other section, for here, the meteorological, climatic, and geographical conditions favor constant flying. Furthermore, the presence of the fifth largest city in the United States, with vast industrial and financial resources, provides other advantages that make for the rapid and sound growth of all phases of aeronautics.”

The Chamber detailed the benefits for manufacturing and marketing with the large supply of skilled and unskilled workers available; an abundance of utility options; low building and maintenance cost; and plentiful raw materials to name just a few. The weather conditions were expounded upon as was the number of airlines, aircraft and engine manufacturers, aviation schools, and airports. Los Angeles County had 52 landing fields in 1928, 37 of which were privately owned or leased. All these individual elements reflected the city’s enthusiasm for aviation and . . .

Cliff Henderson, et. Al. promoting the LA National Air Races

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics;
The Formative Years, 1915 - 1927

The Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
In the years immediately following the Wright brothers’ 1903 demonstration of powered and controllable flight at Kitty Hawk there was very little activity in America in advancing the state-of-the-art of the flying machine – in part due to the brothers’ secrecy about their work in an attempt to protect their rights to their “invention.” In 1905 when they tried to interest the U.S. Army in their airplane, the initial response indicated that the government was unsure that a flying machine existed. By 1908 doubts about the reality of heavier-than-air powered flight had faded and the Army issued a Request for Proposal for a flight demonstration. The initial flights at Fort Myer, Va., in September 1908 indicated that the Wright Flyer could meet the Army’s speed and endurance requirements, but ended tragically when a propeller failure caused a crash that seriously injured Orville Wright and killed his Army passenger, Lt. Thomas E. Selfridge.

Based the favorable initial flight demonstrations at Fort Myer, the Wright’s contract was extended until July 28, 1909, and a repaired (or replaced) Wright Flyer, piloted by a recovered Orville Wright, completed the required demonstration. In August 1909 the Army purchased its first airplane but had no plans for its use. The Army’s lack of interest in the military application of the airplane is evidenced by the fact that a second flying machine was not ordered until a year and a half later.

In August of 1908, while Orville was at Fort Myer, Wilbur Wright was in France demonstrating the Flyer to a thrilled and astonished crowd. The response to the flights in Europe was in sharp contrast to events in America. Visionary leaders in England, France, Russia and Germany began to explore the possible uses of the airplane as a military asset and pressed for the development of aeronautical technology. At the start of the great War in 1914, France had about 1,400 airplanes, Great Britain had 400, Russia had 800 and Germany had 1,000. The United States at that time had 23 military airplanes with 12 of these belonging to the Navy.

By 1911 European nations had government-sanctioned or privately-funded aeronautical laboratories. In France the Central Establishment for Military Aeronautics1 located near Paris would soon merge with the Aeronautical Technical Institute of the University of Paris. The Russian Aerodynamic Institute of Koutchino was associated with the University of Moscow.2 Ludwig Prandtl, the eminent German theoretical aerodynamicist, had established the Aerodynamic Laboratory at the University of Gottingen in 1903 and in England the government-funded British Royal Aircraft Factory had been created in 1909.

Attempts to establish an American national aeronautical laboratory as early as 1911 were stifled by a lack of interest on the part of Congress in funding such a laboratory as well as conflicts over which government agency (i.e. the Smithsonian, the National Bureau of Standards, the Army or the Navy) would be responsible for the lab.

Among the early advocates for a centralized U.S. aeronautical research activity was Navy Capt. W. Irving Chambers. In his 1912 Report on Aviation to the Secretary . . .

NACA Wind Tunnel No. 1

The Survival and Rescue of Joe Tippets from the 1943 Gillam Crash

Expect Trouble
Seventy-seven years ago, an airplane piloted by the legendary Harold Gillam with five passengers onboard, was reported missing in remote Southeast Alaska. Related events of that next month evoked all the human emotions and powers of tragic loss, courage, love and faith. Ultimately, four men prevailed against the odds and the cruel winter elements to be found and rescued. This is their story of determined perseverance and miraculous survival.

Joseph Tippets, a Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) radio engineer based in Anchorage, had spent the 1942 Christmas in Utah with his family and seriously ill mother. He also contacted and visited with the parents of several servicemen who were members of the small Mormon congregation in Anchorage, of which he was the lay leader. Joe then made his way to Seattle where, on the New Year’s Eve, he wrote to his wife at home in Anchorage with their nearly two-year-old son, “Alta, I miss you and love you! I thank God for having you as my wife and needless to say, I haven’t been able to get you and Johnny out of my thoughts. Godspeed our quick reunion and I hope I beat this letter to you!”

Joe and four other passengers left Seattle on January 5, 1943, for Anchorage aboard a plane owned by the Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. of Boise, ID. Morrison-Knudsen’s chief pilot, and flying the Lockheed Electra on this flight, was the revered Alaska bush pilot, Harold Gillam. Gillam’s skills, pioneering aviation ventures, his “near misses” and recoveries had earned him the description as “Thrill-em, Chill-em, Spill-em, but no Kill-em, Gillam”. His was one of the most knowledgeable and very best of that generation of great Alaska flyers.

The others on the flight were Robert Gebo (an M-K construction supervisor), Percy Cutting (an M-K mechanic), Dewey Metzdorf (owner/operator of the Anchorage Hotel), and Susan Batzer (a new CAA employee going to Anchorage for her first assignment).

With traffic on the road to Seattle’s Boeing Field, then passenger clearances at the airport (due to the Japanese presence in the Aleutians, the War Department tightly restricted Alaska travel) and next a mechanical issue, the flight was belatedly airborne and finally headed towards the Annette Island airfield for a fueling stop before flying on to. . .

Tippets and Cutting searching for rescuers

The Jensen Trainer Model 2; A Depression-Era
Private Venture

“She could have been a contender.”
Although there is no record of him actually saying so, Martin “Marty” Jensen, who described himself as an “aircraft designer – pilot,” very probably must have held such sentiments by the time the astonishing trek of his little-known Trainer Model 2 finally came to an end.

Readers familiar with the work of this writer may be surprised to see the by-line associated with this story, as the history of aviation in Latin America has been – and remains – his forte.
However, believe it or not, the Jensen Trainer Model 2 had a Latin American connection, and it was this phase of its existence that first caught my attention. It was, from that point on, very much a case of “the more I learned, the more intrigued I became.”

In many ways, it is a peculiarly American story, and as the story unfolds, this may become obvious to even the most skeptical reader.

But before we get to this very interesting little biplane, we really need to know a bit more about the man behind it all.

Not Exactly a Household Name
Marty Jensen may fairly be said to have grown up alongside aviation.

Born just before Christmas on December 20, 1900 in a cold and wind-swept Jamestown, Kansas, to Nils and Marin Jensen, the family moved to South Sioux City, Nebraska, by the time he was a teenager, where he graduated from high school – just in time for the entry of the U.S. into WWI.

Although he often said that he had learned to fly in the Navy in 1917-1918 at Great Lakes Naval Aviation School in Illinois, in fact he was an enlisted aviation rating (Second Class Aviation Rigger) on a two-year, short-term enlistment. He spent six months at Great Lakes before being transferred to San Diego, where he flew frequently from the former Dutch Flats Field, and where he was attached to the Torpedo Plane Squadron of the USS Aroostock, and gained a commission as an Ensign in the Naval Reserve, at San Diego in 1925, only after he had gained an FAI civil license, rather belatedly, in 1921, having learned to fly in 1919 in San Diego. He claimed about 40 hours in Curtiss R-6s there, so this must have been when he qualified for his FAI license.

By the end of 1924, like so many WWI-era veterans who had been well-and-thoroughly bitten by flying, he had organized a rather ad hoc flying school, conducted during the winter months at Dutch Flats near San Diego, where his modest “Jensen School of Flying” logo was emblazoned across the top of what were apparently Curtiss JN-4 shipping crates, and barnstormed during the summers throughout the West.

Apparently, he soon came to realize that there were, after all, things in life besides airplanes and, on April 24, 1925, he married Miss Marguerite (invariable known in later years, . . .

Jensen Trainer Model 2

Non-Skeds: The Story of America’s Suppliemental Airlines, Part 2

While the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) grappled with how to handle the unregulated mass of companies that made up the irregular carriers, the regulated scheduled airlines made it quite clear that they wanted the non-skeds to be put out of business. Despite the fact that the large irregular carriers were claiming that they were creating their own traffic and not infringing on the revenue stream of the regulated airlines, the scheduled carriers estimated that they lost over $13 million in revenue to the non-skeds during 1948.

In the CAB’s initial attempt to bring some order to the irregulars by issuing letters of registration, 142 companies were recognized via this process. At first the Board did not define exactly what constituted “infrequent, irregular” service, but eventually ruled that it meant only three flights in some markets, and up to eight flights in others during any one-month period.

In 1948, at the request of the United States Senate’s Small Business Committee, the CAB launched a full-scale investigation into the large irregular carriers, supposedly to determine their rightful place in America’s commercial airline hierarchy. The CAB’s guidelines for its investigation were contained in a memorandum written by Louis Goodkind, Associate Director of the Board’s Bureau of Economic Regulation. His memo was a private, internal document for CAB staff. It was never intended for anyone’s eyes outside of the Civil Aeronautics Board. If the contents of Goodkind’s memorandum had been released, then Congress and everyone else would have been made aware of the CAB’s true attitude toward the non-skeds.

The secret memo was made public five years later, in 1953, by investigative newspaper columnist Drew Pearson. He revealed that Goodkind’s sole mission, outlined in the 1948 memo, was to put all of the non-scheduled airlines out of business. The vehicle for doing this would be scrutiny of each company by the CAB, with a planned goal of denying operating authority to every applicant. In the memorandum, Goodkind stated that all letters of registration would be revoked and each carrier would have to appear before the Board to apply for a regular Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which would turn them into a certificated carrier, or for permission to continue operating as a non-scheduled airline. In Goodkind’s own words: “Either procedure has the advantage of affording a means for ultimately terminating the operations of this group of carriers.” The CAB, under pressure from the regulated scheduled airlines, had decided that it was time to bring an end to the problem of unregulated, non-scheduled airlines once and for all.

The CAB’s purge of the non-skeds began on April 18, 1949, when the Board summarily abolished authorization for all of the irregulars and began the process of having each company apply for a certificate, or for permission if they wanted to stay in business. Of the first 103 applicants to approach the CAB, the majority of them were turned down. The few from that group that were approved to function as non-scheduled operators were considered too small to offer any competitive threat to the scheduled airlines.

In the Board’s defense, something had to be done. Aside from the fact that the CAB was frustrated by carriers ignoring . . .

Great Lakes Airlines DC-4

There Never Was An Air Service AO-1; The history of the prototype Fokker C.V in the USA

In the period after the Great War, the U.S. Army Air Service (USAAS) introduced a type numbering for their future needs, using Roman numbers. So, Type I was a Pursuit-Water Cooled (PW-designation), Type II a Pursuit-Night Work (PN), Type X the Corps Observation (CO) etc. The system was used from 1919-1924 before the ‘modern’ model prefix was adapted with P for Pursuit, B for Bombardment, C for Cargo and O for Observation. On the 1919-1924 model designation list was also a Type IX designated Artillery Observation-Surveillance (AO). A number of sources mention the existence of only one AO, the Atlantic AO-1, but this designation proved to be a mistake. Here is its story.

The need for reconnaissance aircraft At the beginning of 1924, in the USAAS realized that attention had to be given to the purchase of large numbers of reconnaissance aircraft, developed specifically for this task. Placed in the category ‘type X Corps Observation (CO)’ they were to replace the ancient DH-4s from the war. Until then, the only aircraft for this role, which had progressed to the prototype stage, was the (Dutch) Fokker CO-4. The Air Service had purchased in 1922 three C.IV’s, called them CO-4, followed soon thereafter with an additional order for a test fuselage and five CO-4A’s for service tests. For internal reasons, the U.S. Department of War had intervened by cutting the originally proposed order of 10 CO-4As to five to dampen the critics of foreign orders.[1]

A competition
For the purchase of a new standard ‘Observation,’ the USAAS formulated requirements for two future standard types namely a heavy observation type using Curtiss D-12, Wright T3, Packard 1A1500 or Liberty engines, and a light observation aircraft with Liberty engine. For the heavy type paid orders were offered to the four most promising prototypes2 of which the designs were due to be presented April 24, 1924. In November, comparative testing of the prototypes would be conducted by the Engineering Division at McCook Field.

For the light observation circular 24 87 was issued, calling for existing types or aircraft that could be made available at short notice. Bids were expected to be delivered on June 4, 1924, and the prospect was a production order in October. Much to Fokker’s relief, the light competition was also open to foreign aircraft. Later, both competitions were combined with the winners announced in February 1925.

Robert B.C. Noorduyn, the American representative of Fokker, realized (partly because of his good contacts at McCook Field) that there were opportunities for new orders, this time for a Fokker observation in the light category. He had already acted before the competition was announced by advising the parent company in the Netherlands for the development of an ‘improved CO-4.’ Noorduyn had made an inventory of the Air Service critics on the CO-4/CO-4A and indicated what kind of improvements were needed. When the specification for the light observation was released by the USAAS in April, Noorduyn hastily forwarded it to the Netherlands and in an accompanying letter3 expressed his opinion that an early arrival of the type in the U.S. would make an anticipated production order almost certain. It was necessary for the improved aircraft to arrive in . . .

Fokker Atlantic A-01

Parks Air College, Teaching Pilots to Fly the Ford Tri-Motor

Parks Air College was founded in 1926 by Oliver Parks as one of the first aviation schools in the country. In fact, it has training certificate number 1 for Flight Training Schools in America. After Charles Lindbergh’s transatlantic flight in 1927, aviation became very popular in the United States. Parks Air College was already established for training of academics and pilots.

In the Fall of 1929, Parks purchased a new Ford 5-AT-C Tri-Motor, c/n 5-AT-64. It was registered as NC405H. Parks took delivery on November 15, 1929. The Ford was used by the college for training in the Air Transport Course (today’s Air Transport Rating (ATR)) offered at Parks for the sum of $4,550, which included 200 hours of flight time.

The Ford was also used to give penny-a-pound rides during Sunday airshows. It was frequently piloted by Henry “Hiney” Schnittger.

The timing was very bad for Parks Air College as the Great Depression had just hit. The college sold the Ford on May 16, 1930 to Southwest Air Fast Express in Tulsa, Oklahoma. SAFE sold the Ford on November 28, 1930, to Erle P. Halliburton of Los Angles, California. He sold the plane on August 1, 1934, to Compania Minera Agua Fria S. A. in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Before taking delivery of the Ford, it was converted by Timm Aircraft who reinforced the cabin with a cargo hatch on the top rear and added adjustable propellers. It was registered as XH-TAW. It was next sold to TACA of Honduras. From January 27, 1942, TACA Nicaragua until October 15, 1942, the . . .

Parks Air College Ford Tri-motor

News & Comments from Our Members

Spring 2020, Vol. 65, No. 2 - James “Jimmy” H. Doolittle, by Martin Maisel

I have some nits to pick with the article “James ‘Jimmy’ H. Doolittle” by Martin Maisel in the Summer 2020 AAHS Journal.

First, Mr Maisel claims that the tail guns of the B-25s used in the Tokyo Raid were removed to save weight (page 141 of the article). The aircraft used in the raid were B-25Bs and they had no provision for tail guns. The black broomsticks that were placed in the tail cones of the B-25Bs were ruses to discourage enemy planes from attacking from the rear.

Mr Maisel mentioned two psychological impacts from the Tokyo Raid, the damage to Japanese morale and the subsequent withdrawal of fighter units to the homeland, and the boost to American morale (page 143). These were indeed two important impacts, however, there was a third that was probably more important. It goaded the Japanese naval authorities to accelerate their plans to attack Midway in June 1942, with disastrous results for the Japanese.

[Doolittle, in his book, did recognize that Japan’s concern about additional attacks on their mainland may have caused the Japanese to attack Midway to push the front further from Japan - but it was not clear (based on Doolittle’s book) that the attack on Midway was accelerated due to the Doolittle raid. M. Maisel]

On page 144 Mr Maisel states that “Doolittle was the first hero of WWII” as the result of the raid and his subsequent award of the Congressional Medal of Honor (CMH). That was a bit of an overstatement on Mr Maisel’s part, I believe. I would agree if Maisel had qualified his statement with Doolittle being the first Army Air Force CMH hero, with apologies to early early war hero Captain Colin Kelly, who won the only the Distinguished Service Cross for his attack on the invading Japanese fleet on 10 December 1941. If one is speaking of aviators, however, Doolittle was preceded by Lt Cmdr Edward H. “Butch” O’Hare, who won the CMH for actions on 20 February 1942, when he shot down five Japanese planes on a single mission. Also, there were fifteen, count ‘em, fifteen CMHs awarded to Navy personnel for their actions at Pearl Harbor. The exploits of many of those members were well-known by April 1942. Lastly, General Douglas MacArthur was awarded the CMH on 1 April 1942, although his award was controversial at the time, and his heroism debatable.

On the same page Mr Maisel states that the 12th Air Force fell under Gen. George Patton. Although the Army ground forces commanders would have loved to have their own, personal air force, the 12th actually fell under the control of the overall TORCH (invasion of North Africa) commander, General Dwight Eisenhower. Patton could request help from the 12th, but his request had to filter up to Eisenhower, then descend through the chain-of-command to Doolittle.

[George Patton was the ground commander, Doolittle the air commander of the 12th Air Force. True - Eisenhower was the supreme commander but Doolittle implied that he had direct contact with Patton. M. Maisel]

Later on page 144, Maisel stated that Doolittle took command of 15th Air Force during the assault on Sicily (July 1943) and the invasion of Southern Italy (September 1943). This is incorrect. Yes, Doolittle was the first commander of 15th Air Force, but it wasn’t activated until 1 November 1943, well after the Sicily and Southern Italy invasions.

Lastly, on page 145, Mr Maisel states that Doolittle planned “…to use the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in a series of coordinated raids on the German war industry, supported by night bombing by the RAF.” This effort, called the Combined . . .

The FORUM is presented as an opportunity for each member to participate in the Journal by submitting interesting or unusual photographs. This issue features a combination of material. In addition to images submitted by members, the Society is scanning its slide archive contributed by members old and new, and a number of interesting shots have been pulled from the sliides that have been scanned. Unfortunately, in many cases the contributor information has been lost. Where known, we acknowledge them.

Negatives, slides, black-and-white or color photos with good contrast may be used if they have smooth surfaces. Digital submissions are also acceptable, but please provide high resolution images (>3,000 pixels wide). Please include as much information as possible about the image such as: date, place, msn (manufacturer’s serial number), names, etc., plus proper photo credit (it may be from your collection but takenby another photographer).

Send submissions to the Editorial Committee marked “Forum of Flight,” P.O. Box 3023 Huntington Beach, CA 92605-3023. Mark any material to be returned: “Return to (yourname and complete address).” Or you may wish to have your material added to the AAHS photo archives.

North American AJ-2 Savage

President’s Message

You are likely feeling similar to myself right about now, in that you are heartily sick of a world focused only on death counts and whom to blame them on. Aren’t there other important, impactful things that should also be demanding our attention now to avoid disaster later?

In our tiny corner of the world, we are continuing to move forward with important tasks which, we know if not done soon, will critically impact our ability to survive as an organization. One of those is downsizing our Huntington Beach office space, which had become prohibitively expensive. We have been gradually moving our headquarters to Flabob Airport, Riverside, but we had planned to keep a small footprint in Orange County to support projects managed by Orange County-based volunteers.

Amid all the pandemic uproar our dedicated volunteers have modified their schedules and worked with a neighboring office tenant to negotiate an office ‘swap’ – where we move into the neighbor tenant’s smaller unit, and they take over our larger unit. The volunteers have had zoom meetings, telecons and email action lists to make this work even under these unprecedented times, and along with our regular AAHS maintenance tasks. If, and when you get the chance, do send a ‘thanks’ to the office volunteers, such as Library Manager Bob Palazzola and Archive Manager Paul Butler for their tireless support of our goals.

A hidden, positive outcome of forced ‘at-home’ mandates has generated several new volunteers who are helping with our web-based ‘AAHS PLANE SPOTTER’ app (www.AAHSPlaneSpotter.com), developed by Hayden Hamilton, that is allowing volunteers to help catalog the AAHS photo archive, online from their own computers. If you’re interested in giving AAHS a few hours of your time from the comfort of your on home, this is a great way to get your aviation fix!

Another goal we’ve recently accomplished is finding ongoing editorial support for the AAHS FlightLine newsletter. This newsy-format publication was a standard 4x yearly offering from AAHS, along with the Journal up until fall, 2018. But, with increasing responsibilities, our Journal Editor, Hayden Hamilton could no longer keep the publication going. The Board of Directors approved support for this important product, and have asked Job Conger, a longtime AAHS member, professional writer, volunteer AAHS Journal proofer and contributor, to assist in putting the FlightLine back on a regular publication schedule. Job will support content collection and editing for FlightLine articles and submitted photographs. We by no means have a complete staff; we still need to fill the role of content manager, to support both Job and Hayden with relevant material collection. Do please contact the office if you’re interested.

Our strange new world still does not allow large group functions in many urban settings, including Hiller Air Museum and SFO Aviation Archives, which has prompted the AAHS Board of Directors to officially CANCEL plans for an AAHS Annual meeting this year. We have contacted all members currently signed up, and will be providing refunds to all as requested. More details will be available on the AAHS website.

There are many consequences of our mad new world, and all we can really do is support each other and those in need, keep our long-term goals in mind, and keep plugging along!

Jerri Bergen
AAHS President