New military jets

[Air Race Addict]

Re: New military jets

Ah....a youngster! :-) Spoken only as someone who never saw the Blues or Birds fill the sky with the Phantom. Nothing like it before...nothing like it since. NEVER to be duplicated.

LOUD. Black smoke. HUGE planes that literally presented a 'solid' formation, with nothing visible through it.

The Skyhawks were graceful. The Phantoms were just plain impressive.

I personally wish I could have seen the Birds flying F-100's.

Ah....a youngster! :-) Spoken only as someone who never saw the Birds fill the sky with the F-100. HAH! (or the Blues in the F9F's, or the birds in the.......... uh oh, I think I'm dating myself. HAH! I guess that's better than no dating at all. HAH! Sometimes I crack myself up.
ME PLEEEEEEEZ BRAD!

[Chad Veich]

Re: New military jets

Ah....a youngster! :-) Spoken only as someone who never saw the Blues or Birds fill the sky with the Phantom. Nothing like it before...nothing like it since. NEVER to be duplicated.

LOUD. Black smoke. HUGE planes that literally presented a 'solid' formation, with nothing visible through it.

The Skyhawks were graceful. The Phantoms were just plain impressive.

I personally wish I could have seen the Birds flying F-100's.

Yes, a "youngster", 33 last July as a matter of fact. Too young to remember the Phantom with the Blues or the T-birds. However, I think the Phantom is similar to the Hornet in that is a big and heavy airplane and is just not as nimble down low and in tight quarters like the Skyhawk was. Maybe I just like the Skyhawk better than either!

Ok, seems the Blues did go from the F-4 to the A-4 before the F-18. So then, did the T-birds go from the Talon to the F-4 and back to the Talon before getting the F-16?

[Air Race Addict]

Re: New military jets

Yes, a "youngster", 33 last July as a matter of fact. Too young to remember the Phantom with the Blues or the T-birds. However, I think the Phantom is similar to the Hornet in that is a big and heavy airplane and is just not as nimble down low and in tight quarters like the Skyhawk was. Maybe I just like the Skyhawk better than either!

Ok, seems the Blues did go from the F-4 to the A-4 before the F-18. So then, did the T-birds go from the Talon to the F-4 and back to the Talon before getting the F-16?

Don't think so. After the terrible accident in the desert when they crashed in formation, they transitioned to the F-16. I COULD be mistaken, but I think they had the T-38 long enough that returning to the Phantom was pretty much out of the question. Not impossible mind you, but improbable. I never did get to see them in the 38. My bad I guess.
As far as the Skyhawk being the best as far as performances go, I couldn't agree with you more Chad. Good call, IMHO.

[speeddemon]

Re: New military jets

Ah....a youngster! :-) Spoken only as someone who never saw the Birds fill the sky with the F-100. HAH! (or the Blues in the F9F's, or the birds in the.......... uh oh, I think I'm dating myself. HAH! I guess that's better than no dating at all. HAH! Sometimes I crack myself up.
ME PLEEEEEEEZ BRAD!

Shut up, Bill. At least I'm not OLD. I'm just old. :-P

And while we're at it, did I mention that MY boat beat YOUR boat last weekend????

[Air Race Addict]

Re: New military jets

Shut up, Bill. At least I'm not OLD. I'm just old. :-P

And while we're at it, did I mention that MY boat beat YOUR boat last weekend????

YEAH YEAH YEAH. Don't have to rub it in

[speeddemon]

Re: New military jets

Yes, a "youngster", 33 last July as a matter of fact. Too young to remember the Phantom with the Blues or the T-birds. However, I think the Phantom is similar to the Hornet in that is a big and heavy airplane and is just not as nimble down low and in tight quarters like the Skyhawk was. Maybe I just like the Skyhawk better than either!

Ok, seems the Blues did go from the F-4 to the A-4 before the F-18. So then, did the T-birds go from the Talon to the F-4 and back to the Talon before getting the F-16?

The Phantom had a phenominal roll rate. The F-18's take ages to get all the way around in comparison.

The T-birds went from the F-100Ato the F-105 (for six shows) then back to the F-100C, then to the Phantom, then the Talon. They only had the T-38 from '74 until '82...which as Bill pointed out was when they formation flew into the desert. What a shocking reality check THAT was. And all because of a failed part in the flight lead's plane that was never caught.

[speeddemon]

Re: New military jets

I would HIGHLY recommend to anyone watching the movie "Threshold: The Blue Angels Experience". It was originally a general theatrical release from 1972. Watch it on a big screen tv, turn up the sound, 'ignore' the cheesy sound track, and see what made me decide at a very young age that I wanted to be a Naval Aviator when I grew up...and why I STILL would give anything to fly the Phantom today.

The camera angles they used were amazing (especially given when it was made), and it has some really eye-opening moments and frank commentary from the pilots.

One of my favorites being when solo pilot #5 Steve Shoemaker does a dirty loop, and at the top of it he looks slow...but there is nothing you can 'reference' as to how fast he's going. As he comes down the other side this is the exchange between him and flight leader Harley Hall:

"Well, that was very interesting Boss. I just got down to 40 knots at the top of that son of a bitch!"

"Are you alive?"

"Yeah....but I was scared."

Can you imagine. Upside down in a Phantom, at about 2000 feet, gear and flaps out, and down to 40 knots IAS???? I can't ever imagine being so cool under pressure.

Any other video/dvd that has been released since on either the Blues or T-birds just pales by comparison. Heart-stopping footage that puts a completely new perspective on what it takes. Even more impressive after having 'lived' the Naval Aviator's experience. Ask Hacker what he thinks of it.

[Air Race Addict]

Re: New military jets

The Phantom had a phenominal roll rate. The F-18's take ages to get all the way around in comparison.

I loved the Tbirds and the Blues in the Phantom. The more noise and smoke the better I always say. And, they WERE huge. But it was different as Brad points out. The Skyhawks were more graceful, and the Scooters were great fun to watch, and talking to the crews from both the F-4 and the A-4, the guys flying the A-4 thought it was more fun to perform in. And it looked like they were having more fun. And Brad, just be thankful that you are ONLY old. HAH!

[Unregistered]

Re: New military jets

Thanks everyone!!

I will just look forward to the F22 herritage/demo flights!

Cheers!

Keith

[Propellerhead]

Re: New military jets

I first saw the Blues (that I remember anyway, my dad says we saw them at Moffett once) at Willow Grove NAS flying the Scooters. Talk about serious overlappage. I thought they were WAY cool!

Rob

P.S. Brad, I used to live near the NADC in PA and had P-3s - gear down - flying over my house all the time.

[Race5]

Re: New military jets

The Phantom had a phenominal roll rate. The F-18's take ages to get all the way around in comparison.

The T-birds went from the F-100Ato the F-105 (for six shows) then back to the F-100C, then to the Phantom, then the Talon. They only had the T-38 from '74 until '82...which as Bill pointed out was when they formation flew into the desert. What a shocking reality check THAT was. And all because of a failed part in the flight lead's plane that was never caught.

What was the part that failed? I remember hearing about the accident, but never the cause.

[Randy Haskin]

Re: New military jets

I would HIGHLY recommend to anyone watching the movie "Threshold: The Blue Angels Experience". <SNIP> Any other video/dvd that has been released since on either the Blues or T-birds just pales by comparison.

Yup. Even with the cheesy 70s music, the disco pants and haircuts, and the Leslie Nielsen narration. It is one of the only movies that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up when I watch it.

EXCELLENT film. Now, if they'd only re-master it and put it out on DVD I'd be a happy camper.

Mandatory quote; "Oh, good collision effect. You just missed a good collision effect."

[Randy Haskin]

Re: New military jets

What was the part that failed? I remember hearing about the accident, but never the cause.

There is actually a lot of debate about this in the USAF, and it's of interest to us who fly the '38.

What the accident investigation board actually came up with initially was that Thunderbird 1 topped out of his loop too low. Once he got 60 degrees nose low - inverted - on the back side of that loop, he was all ready as good as dead. That initial report also found that some of the stabilator to stick linkages were deformed, but theorized that it was because the pilot was physically pulling on the stick harder to attempt recovery from the loop.

When that initial report was submitted to TAC Commander, General Creech, he reportedly returned it to the board with the statement that "Thunderbirds do not commit pilot errors."

When the second report came out, it said this:

The video tape indicated that the stabilizer angel essentially did not change on the backside of the loop until very late and then only a small amount. (7deg vs the available 17deg) (it was 3.4 degrees through most of the backside of the loop.) At some point even a novice pilot would have realized he was in a serious problem and would have overreacted and pulled the stick to maximum deflection and at least overstressed his aircraft. This never happened.

The reason this happened, the board theorized, was the failure of some mythical "shock absorber" in the T-38's artifical feel system in the pitch control. I stole this quote from Ed Rasimus off USEnet, who was a T-38 instructor in my current squadron (back when it was at Holloman AFB). It was the rest of the T-38 fleet's reaction to this 'reason' for the accident:

The problem was that with four squadrons of experienced fighter pilots flying 130 AT-38 aircraft at Holloman and more than 800 maintenance troops on the line, no one had ever encountered the guilty "shock absorber". There was no mention in the tech orders and no corrective action to fix the errant machinery.

Indeed, the most telling evidence is that the rest of the very active T-38 fleet was never grounded, nor subjected to any inspections, repair, or replacement of this item after the results of the investigation.

So, bottom line: Pilot error caused the accident, and a mechanical failure was drummed up afterward by the USAF leadership to save face.

[440_Magnum]

Re: New military jets

Yup, Bills right. They flew the F-4's from '68-73, and the A-4's from '74-86. The switch was purely economical due to the fuel crisis. Same reasons the T-birds downgraded from F-4's to T-38's.

I always assumed that both of those moves were because an aerobatic performance with a bunch of F-4s was about as artistic as throwing bricks through the air.... I kid because I care- I grew up to the sight and sounds of Phantoms at the local AFB- both long gone now. The last squadron there was an RF-4 squadron, and they did training runs up the creek that ran through our property. That made my hair stand up a time or two!

I really do miss The A-4 too. That little thing was amazing, and I'd much rather watch an A-4 aerobatic performance than pretty much any other jet.

If I had to just pick ONE of all the types that either the Blues or T-birds have flown to see just ONE show, I'd have to say gimme the F-105. I've seen A-4 aerobatics, but never a Thud.

[GeeBeeZ1931]

Re: New military jets

This year at Nellis.

The Raptor was also in heritage flights at two other shows this year, Edwards and ?

I have to agree with Dave, I don't think we'll be seeing the Tbirds or Blues with anything new for a long time.

Hmmmm, TBirds in F-15's, or how about retro TBirds back in F-4's

And I thought the F4 was big?!

Bill Kohler