The local airshow is this weekend, and I woke today to my windows rattling and the sound of a jet just outside my place. Hell yeah, the Blue Angels are practicing, noisy as hell outside, and I love it.
Another bonus for the airshow this weekend, my friend (who just found out was assigned the B-1) is flying his T-6 up from Mississippi to display at the airshow.
thats bad ass are u close enough to see anything
I'm looking forward to the air & sea show coming back to Ft. Lauderdale next year [thumbsup]
Quote from: causeofkaos on August 20, 2009, 11:28:12 AM
thats bad ass are u close enough to see anything
Close enough that when the sun is shining, they cast shadows on my yard/driveway at times!
My camera took a shit, otherwise I'd post pictures. Just about everyone I have on Facebook that lives here in town is posting pictures.
These are some a friend took from her yard:
(They are just as close at my place.)
(http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs169.snc1/6328_1190830445158_1060275173_612001_3234109_n.jpg)
(http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs169.snc1/6328_1190831485184_1060275173_612003_8146974_n.jpg)
(http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs189.snc1/6328_1190748483109_1060275173_611722_4021716_n.jpg)
[thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup]
(http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/precision/images/22806/blue-angels-oceana-2008.jpg)
(http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/precision/images/21700/u-s-navy-blue-angels.jpg)
The Blue Angels are amazing. Top Gun all the way.
[thumbsup]
I saw them fly last year and I was not impressed. In the Navy's defense the show was not over water. After the Angels flew...the F-22 came out, the I was REALLY disappointed in the Blue Angels. Go Thunderbirds
!
Were you rockin' out to this in your head & playin' air guitar when they flew past? 8)
Van Halen-Dreams (Blue Angels) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGcxN2D1E34#normal)
[laugh]
Quote from: spolic on August 20, 2009, 01:57:40 PM
I saw them fly last year and I was not impressed. In the Navy's defense the show was not over water. After the Angels flew...the F-22 came out, the I was REALLY disappointed in the Blue Angels. Go Thunderbirds
!
It's possible that they just didn't do a very technical show when you saw them. As impressive as the Thunderbirds are, the shows that I've seen make the Thunderbirds look like they are standing still.
...and was the zing on the Navy really necessary?
Did someone say Thunderbirds?
Brains from Thunderbirds takes centre stage in drench ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2aRDacKANs#normal)
Quote from: Monster Dave on August 20, 2009, 02:27:48 PM
It's possible that they just didn't do a very technical show when you saw them. As impressive as the Thunderbirds are, the shows that I've seen make the Thunderbirds look like they are standing still.
...and was the zing on the Navy really necessary?
a little thin skinned?
i saw the blue angels back in 2002, at the loveland/ft collins airport.
VERY cool show
[thumbsup]
I've seen the Thunderbirds probably 20+ times (dad worked at Nellis AFB where they are based)...and seen the Angels maybe 3-4 times. They're both pretty awesome! [thumbsup] The Angels show always seemed a bit better to me, but probably because the F-18 is my favorite plane.
My dad calls the Thunderbirds the Thunderchickens...he was in the Navy though so he's biased. [cheeky]
This will be the third time they have been to Fargo since I've lived here, and they never cease to amaze me.
I have not had the opportunity to see the Thunderbirds, but would love to.
Quote from: Monster Dave on August 20, 2009, 02:27:48 PM
...and was the zing on the Navy really necessary?
Sorry, no zing intended. I've just seen pictures of them preforming over water and looks like they put on a better show.
I've had the honor of watching the Canadian Snowbirds, French Acrobatic Patrol, Italian Tricolour Arrows but none of them get me going like watching our boys fly!
As far as the Thunderbirds go...it's way past time to upgrade to the F-22. ( I know, I know - budget fights)
The things that plane was pulling at the airshow in Spokane WA was simply amazing.
Quote from: spolic on August 20, 2009, 03:50:34 PM
As far as the Thunderbirds go...it's way past time to upgrade to the F-22. ( I know, I know - budget fights)
f-35 is more likely...
Personally, I think the best part of any Blue Angel show is Fat Albert.
Fat Albert, C-130 Hercules (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6lbQvwlO-M#normal)
Blue Angels "Fat Albert" C-130 Team with JATO Takeoff! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7kP-9iOsI#normal)
seen to many C130 come down without wings...
Little known fact about "Fat Albert" is that it is a Marine Corps plane and crew, when I lived in Okinawa with my dad, one of the KC-130s in his squadron was previously a Blue Angels Fat Albert, and they proudly had the pics to prove it. Some of his pilots flew Fat Albert with the Angels and they had some wild stories of life on the road!
I used to work in a lab on the 12th floor in San Francisco, the Blue Angels would buzz us every year. 8)
what a blessing it is living near MCAS Miramar [thumbsup]
Quote from: derby on August 20, 2009, 04:37:10 PM
f-35 is more likely...
Why do you say that? The F-35 is the likely replacement for the Blue Angel F-18s.
The F-22 is the Air Force's flagship fighter, regardless of recent cuts...it's a shoe-in for the Thunderbirds. Plus, with thrust vectoring it can do some pretty amazing things.
Quote from: Triple J on August 20, 2009, 08:23:30 PM
Why do you say that? The F-35 is the likely replacement for the Blue Angel F-18s.
the f-35 is set to replace the f-16, a-10, and f-18s... there's no reason that it couldn't replace the thunderbird f-16s, too.
Quote from: Triple J on August 20, 2009, 08:23:30 PM
The F-22 is the Air Force's flagship fighter, regardless of recent cuts...it's a shoe-in for the Thunderbirds. Plus, with thrust vectoring it can do some pretty amazing things.
the f-35 also does thrust vectoring. edit: only for vtol...
honestly, the 35 is a much more affordable, slightly less capable 22.
Quote from: derby on August 20, 2009, 08:43:50 PM
the f-35 is set to replace the f-16, a-10, and f-18s... there's no reason that it couldn't replace the thunderbird f-16s, too.
the f-35 also does thrust vectoring.
honestly, the 35 is a much more affordable, slightly less capable 22.
The F-35 uses a form of thrust vectoring to primarily allow vertical take-off/landing. The F-22 uses it for higher maneuverability, which gives it a greater capability in that department and would be great for aerobatics. The F-22 can also cruise at supersonic speed without afterburner...something no other plane can do. I get what you're saying, but they're quite different planes.
Anyway, the F-22 is the flagship air force fighter...so it makes sense they would use that aircraft for their aerobatics...the Navy can't as it doesn't have carrier landing capability. The Navy would use the F-35 for aerobatics. I seriously doubt they both would use the same plane.
Who knows though...we'll see within the next decade.
Quote from: Triple J on August 20, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
Anyway, the F-22 is the flagship air force fighter...so it makes sense they would use that aircraft for their aerobatics...the Navy can't as it doesn't have carrier landing capability. The Navy would use the F-35 for aerobatics. I seriously doubt they both would use the same plane.
from a sheer performance aspect, i agree... however, taking the 22's (much) higher cost and (significantly) lower production numbers, i think it'd be unlikely to assign a handful of them to an aerobatic squad.
Quote from: Triple J on August 20, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
Who knows though...we'll see within the next decade.
yup. [thumbsup]
as a tax payer i am already pissed that the miracle fighter is too fragile to use in "sandy" environments. i would be even more pissed if they became expensive air show toys.
i think it would be a real stretch to see the f22 used as a crowd pleaser, given costs, program cancelation, etc....unless of course they were determined to be obsolete for current combat conditions.
wouldnt that be something....
Quote from: derby on August 21, 2009, 05:18:38 AM
from a sheer performance aspect, i agree... however, taking the 22's (much) higher cost and (significantly) lower production numbers, i think it'd be unlikely to assign a handful of them to an aerobatic squad.
That could doom them for sure. It's a real shame the cost of them went so high. It'll be interesting to see what happens. It would be really weird to see the Angels and T-Birds flying the same plane.
Quote from: herm on August 21, 2009, 06:29:51 AM
as a tax payer i am already pissed that the miracle fighter is too fragile to use in "sandy" environments. i would be even more pissed if they became expensive air show toys.
Why? They don't change the plane, other than a fancy paint job. I believe they can be made combat ready in 24 or 48 hours...something like that.
I knew it had problems, but damn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?sid=ST2009071001019 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?sid=ST2009071001019)
ah hell...one of my favorite T-birds was the T-38. (took the place of the gas hogging F-4)
Back to my comment about the Angels giving a bad show, they didn't even do the JATO with Fat Albert. :(
Quote from: spolic on August 21, 2009, 08:51:14 AM
ah hell...one of my favorite T-birds was the T-38. (took the place of the gas hogging F-4)
As cumbersome of a plane as the F4 was, it's amazing that they used them. Don't get me wrong personally I like the F4's , but it's a serious reflection of how much training goes on to do what they did with them.
Fat Albert....awesome - arguably the most "unique" part of the show!!! [thumbsup]
Quote from: Triple J on August 21, 2009, 07:08:16 AM
That could doom them for sure. It's a real shame the cost of them went so high. It'll be interesting to see what happens. It would be really weird to see the Angels and T-Birds flying the same plane.
Why? They don't change the plane, other than a fancy paint job. I believe they can be made combat ready in 24 or 48 hours...something like that.
I knew it had problems, but damn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?sid=ST2009071001019 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?sid=ST2009071001019)
i am thinking about unnecessary wear and tear on the airplane. i am also assuming that between shows and flight/training hours that the thunderbirds log more stick time than most other planes.
if you google the f22 there is a bunch of info about how expensive they are to maintain (something like 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight time!!!) edit: i see you already did......shoulda read the link you posted.
F 35C carrier variant is coming soon for the navy. Its in my job description to carrier qualify it during its test phase.
No kidding, mine says the same thing. [cheeky]