|
March 16th, 2005, 21:59
| #2 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 459
|  Re: Blue Angels thanks, it's : A Year in the Life Starts at 0300 Zulu! |
|
|
March 16th, 2005, 22:06
| #3 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 6,012
  | Re: Blue Angels I got Tivo so it starts whenever  |
|
|
|
March 16th, 2005, 22:14
| #4 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Mid-Atlantic, KMRB
Posts: 1,925
| Re: Blue Angels Watching it now! Okay, well not now because it's commercial, but I was and will be when it's back on |
|
|
|
March 16th, 2005, 22:31
| #5 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 342
| Re: Blue Angels I always watch these Blue Angel programs expecting to see someone I know, but not yet. We had a couple pilots in my squadron who were ex-Blues, and another pilot go to the Blue Angels while I was there. I've seen a few of those signed posters in places, with the guys I knew, but have never seen em on tv yet. Pretty cool that they're fleet pilots, except for that few year tour with the Blues. |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 00:32
| #6 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,873
| Re: Blue Angels A guy I was AFROTC with at the U of U flew two seasons with the Thunderbirds a few years ago. Unfortunately, I never got to see him perform.  |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 09:27
| #7 |
| Junior Member  Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Atlanta
Posts: 268
| Re: Blue Angels All right, gotta say it: The Thunderbirds are better. I watched the Blue Angel show back to back with the Thunderbird show. Both groups do some amazing things with their airplanes, but the Thunderbird show was simply better. The Thunderbirds flew faster and did more with their airplanes than the Blue Angels. I don't know if this was a limitation of their aircraft compared to the F-16, or, possibly a different leadership philosophy, but the Thunderbirds were better, in my humble opinion. Just thought I'd throw that one onto the fire....  |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 10:05
| #8 |
| Moderator  | Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] All right, gotta say it: The Thunderbirds are better. [/ QUOTE ] No Way dude. Blue Angels all the way.  I have not seen the T-birds in a long time, but I'd like to see one of the them land on a black surface surronded by nothing but water. All the while, the airport is moving....you know the carrier. (I know I am biased as I spent some time on a carrier ansd watched them day in and day out.) Each and every Blue Angel would have no problem doing that. Now in the same respect for MikeD, I don't know too many Navy pilots that were flying down low in the thick of it all, like he was in the hog. |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 12:13
| #9 |
| Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: SoCal
Posts: 52
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] All right, gotta say it: The Thunderbirds are better. [/ QUOTE ] Oh them is fightin words!  I can say I have seen both a few times and I didn't see a lot different with either. Seeing them at different airports I can say they change their speed and some stunts based on the room they have. Although they both have their trademark moves and stunts. I think that a Thunderbird pilot and a Blue Angel pilot could easily switch and after some practice easily fly the "other" routine. For the things they do the planes and pilots seem evenly matched. Deploy to war and yes there will be differences... |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 12:36
| #10 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Mid-Atlantic, KMRB
Posts: 1,925
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] but I'd like to see one of the them land on a black surface surronded by nothing but water. All the while, the airport is moving....you know the carrier. [/ QUOTE ] It's nice when your runway can always be turned into the wind. Let's see 'em land in crosswinds |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 13:03
| #11 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,873
| Re: Blue Angels I've seen both teams countless times, and although I like Vipers more than Hornets, the Blues put on the better show. The T-birds limit themselves to maneuvers "taught to every Air Force pilot during their training", and the spectacle of their routine suffers for it, IMHO. The Blues DON'T fly any slower than the T-birds, but the Hornet is a physically larger aircraft and thus seems to move slower than the T-birds' F-16s. The reality is that both teams--especially the solos--explore the entire subsonic envelope during the show. I have to say, I'm almost bored with both teams as neither have really changed their routine much in the last several years. Same maneuvers, just in a different order. |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 14:28
| #12 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 709
| Re: Blue Angels Nothing compared to the Blues or T-Bird show as when they flew the F-4 Phantoms. Loud and smoke'n!!   That being said, both teams put on a great show...I just prefer the Blues. |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 19:33
| #13 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Nomadic...World Wide Boobie Bungalow Bouncer
Posts: 3,172
| Re: Blue Angels I put in for some time off to make sure I catch them at ILM in april. Its been a long time! |
|
|
|
March 17th, 2005, 23:30
| #14 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: KPHX, KFFZ, KIWA
Posts: 18,901
  | Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] All right, gotta say it: The Thunderbirds are better. I watched the Blue Angel show back to back with the Thunderbird show. Both groups do some amazing things with their airplanes, but the Thunderbird show was simply better. The Thunderbirds flew faster and did more with their airplanes than the Blue Angels. I don't know if this was a limitation of their aircraft compared to the F-16, or, possibly a different leadership philosophy, but the Thunderbirds were better, in my humble opinion. [/ QUOTE ] Gotta say that I majorly disagree with ya bro! Maybe I'm biased but the Hornet is a far more capable aircraft in comparison to the Falcon. Bout the only thing the Viper has on the Hornet is raw speed. Blues are just plain better... -Matthew |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 02:50
| #15 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Where everybody's somebody
Posts: 605
| Re: Blue Angels always wished that the t-birds used the F-15's instead of the 16s. |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 12:40
| #16 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,873
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Gotta say that I majorly disagree with ya bro! Maybe I'm biased but the Hornet is a far more capable aircraft in comparison to the Falcon. Bout the only thing the Viper has on the Hornet is raw speed. [/ QUOTE ] Nope, but thanks for playing! The Hornet is faster and has a MUCH better radar, but the Viper is more maneuverable and more difficult to see, especially at extreme aspect angles (seriously, beyond 5 miles or so, the second a Viper puts you on its 12 or 6, it pretty much becomes invisible). As far as the Blues/Thunderbirds debate, it ain't about the jets, it's what they choose to do with them. The Blues just hang it out more. Probably the best aerial demo I've ever seen was a 12th AF F-16 demo team dude, he really wrung it out--I didn't know a jet could do some of the things he did! |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 13:53
| #17 |
| Administrator  Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark
Posts: 6,897
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] Probably the best aerial demo I've ever seen was a 12th AF F-16 demo team dude, he really wrung it out--I didn't know a jet could do some of the things he did! [/ QUOTE ] Was certainly better than the 9th AF F-16 demo at Kingsville a few years back.  |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 15:20
| #18 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,873
| Re: Blue Angels ¿Porque? |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 15:29
| #19 |
| Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark
Posts: 6,897
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] ¿Porque? [/ QUOTE ] He morted himself in the bottom side of a loop. Same-same from T-Bird at Mountain Home, except a little lower and never ejected. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/20/F16.crash/ |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 18:28
| #20 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: KPHX, KFFZ, KIWA
Posts: 18,901
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Gotta say that I majorly disagree with ya bro! Maybe I'm biased but the Hornet is a far more capable aircraft in comparison to the Falcon. Bout the only thing the Viper has on the Hornet is raw speed. [/ QUOTE ] Nope, but thanks for playing! The Hornet is faster and has a MUCH better radar, but the Viper is more maneuverable and more difficult to see, especially at extreme aspect angles (seriously, beyond 5 miles or so, the second a Viper puts you on its 12 or 6, it pretty much becomes invisible). As far as the Blues/Thunderbirds debate, it ain't about the jets, it's what they choose to do with them. The Blues just hang it out more. Probably the best aerial demo I've ever seen was a 12th AF F-16 demo team dude, he really wrung it out--I didn't know a jet could do some of the things he did! [/ QUOTE ] Gotta respectfully ding ya. The F-16 is a mach 2 capable aircraft. The Hornet even though it has two engines max speed is only mach 1.8. Not even the Super Hornet is as fast as the Viper. Big MikeD you wanna chime in if I'm wrong...? -Matthew |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 18:28
| #21 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: KPHX, KFFZ, KIWA
Posts: 18,901
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] always wished that the t-birds used the F-15's instead of the 16s. [/ QUOTE ] ditto... -Matthew |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 21:47
| #22 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Pleasanton, CA
Posts: 398
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] always wished that the t-birds used the F-15's instead of the 16s. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah F-15's are sweet but the F-16's are the most maneuverable. |
|
|
|
March 18th, 2005, 23:18
| #23 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Inside your OODA loop
Posts: 6,873
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] Gotta respectfully ding ya. The F-16 is a mach 2 capable aircraft. The Hornet even though it has two engines max speed is only mach 1.8. [/ QUOTE ] To paraphrase from an old copy of "Fighter Weapons Review": "though the F-16 is officially a Mach 2-class aircraft, its fixed engine inlet should give you an idea of its top speed". What that pilot was getting at is that true Mach 2-class aircraft all have a means of controlling the amount of air allowed into the intake to mitigate excessive ram air pressure on the engine. The intakes on F-15s, for example, move up and down to control the airflow. So while the F-16's "published" top speed is Mach 2+, I don't know any Viper driver who's had one over 1.3. Somebody feel free to chime in if my answer is incomplete or incorrect. |
|
|
|
March 19th, 2005, 03:51
| #24 |
| Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark
Posts: 6,897
| Re: Blue Angels [ QUOTE ] Somebody feel free to chime in if my answer is incomplete or incorrect. [/ QUOTE ] From my professional experience, I think they're both pieces of ####e. |
|
|
|
March 19th, 2005, 13:38
| #25 |
| Junior Member  Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: work DEN, live SEA
Posts: 73
| Re: Blue Angels Is it just me(usualy is) or do the tbirds not get around as much. I've lived in four states and seen a blue show in all of them but only seen the birds on tv. The 16 is one sexy jet (IMO) but I would like to see one grab the 3rd cable on a floating "postage stamp" at night. Does it matter which one's faster if they can't make the big boom over populated areas. just my2 |
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
