We saw the Blue Angels today!!
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Even better than the Red Arrows or the Frecci Tricolori?
The two American teams, the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds, are more a demonstration of tight formation flying and sheer power and thunder than the precision aerobatics of the European teams.
I still think you'll be hard pushed to beat the Sparrows shear versatility in their displays, as Eric has said, the Angels and T Birds are more of a demonstration team of tight formations. Still mighty impressive and the noise and spectacle of F16s and F18s flying so close together is absolutely fabThe two American teams, the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds, are more a demonstration of tight formation flying and sheer power and thunder than the precision aerobatics of the European teams.
Every time you add another aircraft to a formation, you're increasing the complexity and overall workload by a significant factor. Not to dismiss the phenomenal precision of the Blue Angels, but what the Reds and the few other 9-ship display teams can achieve is nothing short of astounding.
From a spectator point of view, I would definately agree with the OP. There is nothing more impressive than a display team comprised of F-18s. I also prefer to watch them to the Reds/Triccolori etc.
Given that large formation display teams are invariably flown in benign training aircraft such as the Hawk, I would wager the flying skill and precision of the Blue Angels pilots is every bit as impressive as the Red Arrows. These guys certainly have as high a flight aptitude as any jet driver in the world, earning their crust plonking these monsters down on arresting wires in the dead of night.
Now, a Red Arrows display sequence performed in high performance frontline jets would be something to behold!
Incidentally, a RN pilot friend is currently on exchange with the USN, coming to the end of his Super Hornet training. His father is ex-Red Arrows, currently a Test Pilot. I'm keen to discuss with him the differences in skill-set required to fly 18s, as opposed to the Harrier.
Given that large formation display teams are invariably flown in benign training aircraft such as the Hawk, I would wager the flying skill and precision of the Blue Angels pilots is every bit as impressive as the Red Arrows. These guys certainly have as high a flight aptitude as any jet driver in the world, earning their crust plonking these monsters down on arresting wires in the dead of night.
Now, a Red Arrows display sequence performed in high performance frontline jets would be something to behold!
Incidentally, a RN pilot friend is currently on exchange with the USN, coming to the end of his Super Hornet training. His father is ex-Red Arrows, currently a Test Pilot. I'm keen to discuss with him the differences in skill-set required to fly 18s, as opposed to the Harrier.
I have been going to airshows for years, and seen and been impressed with many display teams, including the Thunderbirds, red Arrows and such like that have been at RIAT, Farnborough and Mildenhall in its time, and I rate them all.
But, the team I am desperate to see, the team I watch on TV, the team I will buy a magazine about, is the Blue Angels.
They just seem to be faster, closer, sharper, and tick more of the entertainment boxes than the rest.
And yes, I know that there is no comparison between the Hawk and the F-18, but everything about them just says the best.
And this is from someone who grew up wanting to be in the Red arrows.
Ruttboy.
But, the team I am desperate to see, the team I watch on TV, the team I will buy a magazine about, is the Blue Angels.
They just seem to be faster, closer, sharper, and tick more of the entertainment boxes than the rest.
And yes, I know that there is no comparison between the Hawk and the F-18, but everything about them just says the best.
And this is from someone who grew up wanting to be in the Red arrows.
Ruttboy.
I'm pretty sure the Blue Angels use the fairly old F-18C version. I wonder will they ever change to the Super Hornet - which is quite a bit bigger.
The Thunderbirds did, at one stage, fly the F-4 Phantom but they had a disastrous crash involving a number of aircraft in the mid 1970s and switched to the T-38 Talon for a couple of years. Once the F-16 was established in service with teh USAF, they moved over to that.
The Thunderbirds did, at one stage, fly the F-4 Phantom but they had a disastrous crash involving a number of aircraft in the mid 1970s and switched to the T-38 Talon for a couple of years. Once the F-16 was established in service with teh USAF, they moved over to that.
ruttboy said:
I have been going to airshows for years, and seen and been impressed with many display teams, including the Thunderbirds, red Arrows and such like that have been at RIAT, Farnborough and Mildenhall in its time, and I rate them all.
But, the team I am desperate to see, the team I watch on TV, the team I will buy a magazine about, is the Blue Angels.
They just seem to be faster, closer, sharper, and tick more of the entertainment boxes than the rest.
And yes, I know that there is no comparison between the Hawk and the F-18, but everything about them just says the best.
And this is from someone who grew up wanting to be in the Red arrows.
Ruttboy.
We had a presentation last week from Boeing's chief test pilot for the Super Hornet: Ricardo Traven. He is also their display pilot for events such as Farnborough and does the demos for foreign A/F's looking to buy new aircraft. It was a pretty spellbinding presentation as you might expect, with quite a few incredible video sequences. He spent a bit of time of air displays, and pointed out that display teams such as the Blue Angels or Red Arrows are purely there as a recruitment tool and to demonstrate - however subliminally - the kind of discipline required of pilots through the "follow the leader" principle. The aircraft themselves are largely irrelevant since it's not them that are being demonstrated, rather the discipline of the pilots. But, the team I am desperate to see, the team I watch on TV, the team I will buy a magazine about, is the Blue Angels.
They just seem to be faster, closer, sharper, and tick more of the entertainment boxes than the rest.
And yes, I know that there is no comparison between the Hawk and the F-18, but everything about them just says the best.
And this is from someone who grew up wanting to be in the Red arrows.
Ruttboy.
[I can understand the point about noise and 'presence' of the Hornets, but I wonder if the speeds of different jet dispaly teams are really that much different? They are after all performing in a relatively confined airspace.]
His display routines to potential customers are totally differnt from a public display, since what the public finds interesting is usually not what a military pilot finds interesting. He singled out the Su-27 crash at the Paris airshow a few years ago as an example of a pointless loss of an aircraft. His personal analysis was that the pilot had attempted one roll too many, with the result he couldn't pull out of a subsequent loop...but what was the point? Every pilot and potential purchaser watching knew that even a Cessna can roll...He also commented on the 'Barnstormer' type of display such as wing walking and solo aerobatics. This is the most dangerous type of display, since these tend to be biased toward pilot skill, judgement (or lack of it) and the need to 'go one step better'.
I really wish I could post a copy of his presentation - with the videos.
Edited by dr_gn on Friday 11th September 21:17
dr_gn said:
there as a recruitment tool and to demonstrate - however subliminally - the kind of discipline required of pilots through the "follow the leader" principle. The aircraft themselves are largely irrelevant since it's not them that are being demonstrated, rather the discipline of the pilots.
Absolutey right, display teams are nothing more than a expensive PR tool. The aircraft are irrelevant as long as the display is captivating, but I think we were talking about 'wow factor' of certain display teams, and the reason behind it. Watching the Reds side by side with the Blue Angels, you can usually spot the fact that the reds just edge it in terms of precision. That said, they are flying a hawk aircraft, which is incredibly easy to fly precisely, and lacks wow factor on its own. The Blue Angels, however, are punting extreme high performance tools around, which are much more tricky to fly, at a much higher speed (at some of the red arrow maneuvre speeds, and F-18 would struggle to be airbourne). For all of those reasons (most of which is pilot perspective), I prefer to watch the Blue Angels.
pilchardthecat said:
Based on what? Everyone knows the barrow is a benign vehicle, precise in the right hands.Edited by Papoo on Friday 11th September 21:51
Papoo said:
dr_gn said:
there as a recruitment tool and to demonstrate - however subliminally - the kind of discipline required of pilots through the "follow the leader" principle. The aircraft themselves are largely irrelevant since it's not them that are being demonstrated, rather the discipline of the pilots.
(at some of the red arrow maneuvre speeds, and F-18 would struggle to be airbourne). For all of those reasons (most of which is pilot perspective), I prefer to watch the Blue Angels.And, I'd agree that watching the sheer energy of of a heavy fighter at close quarters is more spectacular than a light trainer, I was just outlining what the guy said about discipline - something that I'd not considered, but is blatantly obvious when spelled out by someone in the know!
Papoo said:
there as a recruitment tool and to demonstrate - however subliminally - the kind of discipline required of pilots through the "follow the leader" principle. The aircraft themselves are largely irrelevant since it's not them that are being demonstrated, rather the discipline of the pilots.
Not entirely true, the Red Arrows display abroad quite frequently in order to demonstrate the Hawk and hoepfully to generate sales. The RAF doesn't recruit from Poland, yet they display there. Presumably BAe help fund these sorties, but either way the red arrows openly say (at displays) that selling the Hawk is one of their aims.Eric Mc said:
I'm pretty sure the Blue Angels use the fairly old F-18C version. I wonder will they ever change to the Super Hornet - which is quite a bit bigger.
The Thunderbirds did, at one stage, fly the F-4 Phantom but they had a disastrous crash involving a number of aircraft in the mid 1970s and switched to the T-38 Talon for a couple of years. Once the F-16 was established in service with tetheSAF, they moved over to that.
There was a tragic T-38 formation crash with the photo in flight mag in the 80's, line abreast, by the time SA kicked it it was too late and they ploughed in formation on the leader one or two had pulled harder but to no avail.The Thunderbirds did, at one stage, fly the F-4 Phantom but they had a disastrous crash involving a number of aircraft in the mid 1970s and switched to the T-38 Talon for a couple of years. Once the F-16 was established in service with tetheSAF, they moved over to that.
The Red Arrows perform a number of functions.
Recruitment is one role - as is an ambassadorial and commercial/promotional role. It's those latter two functions wghich takes the team on overseas tours.
It also allows the public to see where some of their tax monies have gone regarding pilot training and hardware.
Recruitment is one role - as is an ambassadorial and commercial/promotional role. It's those latter two functions wghich takes the team on overseas tours.
It also allows the public to see where some of their tax monies have gone regarding pilot training and hardware.
The ironic part of your comment is that the F-16 isn't really a "big" fighter.
Don't forget that it was selected by the USAF as a result of their Light Fighter Competition of 1974/75.
In the past, the RAF had used front line fighters for their team aerobatics, gouing right back to the days of the Bristol Bulldog of the early 1930s. The last front line fighter to be used for team aerobatics in the raf WAS the English Electric Lightning F1 in the early 1960s.
The Royal Navy had a Sea Vixen team in the late 1960s called "Simon's Circus".
Don't forget that it was selected by the USAF as a result of their Light Fighter Competition of 1974/75.
In the past, the RAF had used front line fighters for their team aerobatics, gouing right back to the days of the Bristol Bulldog of the early 1930s. The last front line fighter to be used for team aerobatics in the raf WAS the English Electric Lightning F1 in the early 1960s.
The Royal Navy had a Sea Vixen team in the late 1960s called "Simon's Circus".
Mr_B said:
Probably been done and going slightly off topic, but the Blue Angels were on Mythbusters this week helping out with the myth that a sonic boom will break glass. Looks good fun going mach 1.03 at 500ft
There is a story from a while back about a pilot training at Valley who was in for the chop. As a resentful leaving gesture he climbed high above Llandudno before essentially conducting a Stuka raid on the town, in the hopes of 'dropping a boom' on the locals. That went down a treat. Anyhow, not to detract from the debate, as Eric has said, they are a big PR/marketing tool for the military and BAe/Boeing/Lockheed Martin etc. Perhaps if the UK had it's head screwed on correctly for the last 20 years, buying off the shelf F-16s/18s, we would have the capability of putting out a team with the awe factor of the Blue Angels with a flavour of the disciplinary input of Britain's finest pilots, rather than the sad insistance of building our own. Sadly, a GR4 display team would require quite the arena, think an entire coastline. And the Harrier, amazing as it is, lack's the pace and sheer thunder of our colonial counterparts. So, Hawk it is, and a great job they do with it, too.
I'm yet to see the Russian Knights in the flesh, something I would love to behold (from a safe distance, mind you)..
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff