Blue Angels vs Thunderbirds

Status
Not open for further replies.

CT8

Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
15,365
Location
Idaho
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
No disrespect, I love all branches of the service, and have the utmost respect for anyone serving, or that served. Having said that Navy imo has the best pilots in any branch of the service. Just taking off from a carrier or landing on a carrier takes some real special skills. Having the opportunity to spent a week on the Vinson last year and seeing an air show from the Vultures Nest of the ship was something I will never forget, it was extremely impressive.
It is amazing to say te least .I went on a dependence day cruise on the Missouri . She is amazing we joined an air craft carrier group and it was like a Star Wars movie. !
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,635
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
As retired USAF it kills me to say but the Blue Angles do out preform the Thunderbirds... however in a dog fight the F22 will out perform the F18... a Raptor pilot will fly up an Navy Aviator's tail so quick and he won't know the score until he is eating bullets...
No argument from me. The Raptor is a phenomenal airplane. And it puts on an incredible show!
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,635
Location
Virginia Beach
For the record, I saw my first air show at Pease AFB in 1984. I was so awed by the Thunderbirds, that I decided I wanted to be a fighter pilot.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
37,834
Location
NY
Nice! I've been on the Missouri twice at Pearl Harbor. An old friend was on her when the Japanese officially signed their surrender Sept 2, 1945.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
37,834
Location
NY
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
No disrespect, I love all branches of the service, and have the utmost respect for anyone serving, or that served. Having said that Navy imo has the best pilots in any branch of the service. Just taking off from a carrier or landing on a carrier takes some real special skills. Having the opportunity to spent a week on the Vinson last year and seeing an air show from the Vultures Nest of the ship was something I will never forget, it was extremely impressive.
It is amazing to say te least .I went on a dependence day cruise on the Missouri . She is amazing we joined an air craft carrier group and it was like a Star Wars movie. !
Nice! I've been on the Missouri twice at Pearl Harbor. An old friend was on her when the Japanese officially signed their surrender Sept 2, 1945.
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
29,237
Location
MA, Mittelfranken.de
Originally Posted By: pandus13
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Bud
Originally Posted By: Trav
I have seen both and enjoy both teams but no matter neither can out fly my wife once she mounts that broom.
Well we now know for sure that she does no reading on BTOG. LOL
Naw, she is a good sport.
Trav, I raise (pun) you one and couple bat wings (I'm on a roll, hehehe), Ever been married to a Transylvanian?
No but mine stays downstairs in the dragons den when she isn't flying around. Every time a UFO is reported I know she left the den or is on her way home.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
10,003
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
62,000 FEET PER MINUTE RATE OF CLIMB! Jesus, that's 11.7 MILES straight up in just 60 seconds! Or 704 MPH vertical climb. If that's a fact that thing should be able to shatter every time to climb record in the books.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
4,828
Location
Nashville, TN via Memphis
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
62,000 FEET PER MINUTE RATE OF CLIMB! Jesus, that's 11.7 MILES straight up in just 60 seconds! Or 704 MPH vertical climb. If that's a fact that thing should be able to shatter every time to climb record in the books.
Well, 2 of the fastest-climbing jets in history are the English Electric Lightning, which is quoted at 50,000 ft/min, and then the F-15's rate of climb is said to be in excess of 50,000 ft/min. So, maybe it's not too far out of the realm of possibility for the F-22 to exceed 60,000 ft/min? After all, I think each of the F-22's engines has around 35,000 lbs/thrust with afterburner. Good article on the Lightning Here
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
10,003
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Something seems amiss with that 62,000 ft. per minute rate of climb figure. Time to climb records are set from a standing start on the runway, to the altitude achieved. No aircraft operating in that configuration could average a rate of climb that high from that type of standing start takeoff roll and flight. It took the F-15 Streak Eagle 207.8 seconds, (3 minutes 27 seconds), to reach 98,425 ft. From a standing start after being released from a tether while in full afterburner. So for an aircraft to claim a 62,000 ft. per minute rate of climb, it would have to achieve that by starting from a supersonic, low level pass. Such an attempt would not pass the criteria for a time to climb record attempt by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale, who officiates such records. How the F-22 would fair in such an identical attempt as the F-15 and other aircraft have done remains to be seen. I doubt the Air Force is even interested in making such an attempt, because it would reveal the aircrafts performance capabilities. https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/world-record-for-time-to-climb-to-a-height-of-30000-meters/ "From brake release at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, at 913 feet (278 meters) above Sea Level, the F-15 reached 30,000 meters (98,425 feet) in 3 minutes, 27.799 seconds." This video shows how the F-15's time to climb record attempts were achieved.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,635
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I'm just not sure the f22 is worth the money. How much armament can one plane carry.
How much armament a plane can carry is one of dozens of parameters that makes a plane effective/worth the money. It's like asking how much the carburetor flows and deciding if an engine is good, or not, while ignoring manifold design, porting, valve size, valve bowl size, cam lift, duration, compression ratio, bore, stroke, rod length and a host of other things that go into engine power... The other things that matter include range, speed, endurance (not the same as range), sensor capability, maneuvering capability (which, alone, would take a book to explain) and variety of armament. The lethality of the airplane, or its effectiveness, is a combination of all of those things. The F-22 was built to dominate the airspace in a high-end conflict. Stealth, speed, range, and yes, armament, all matter, and the F-22 has all of those things. The F-22 has flight performance that is simply overwhelming. No airplane built can come close to its lethality. In wargames, a pair of F-22s routinely kill dozens of regular airplanes, most of which never even see the Raptor coming. It's like pitting your 'Vette against a Ferrari F-40. The missiles that the F-22 carries are not the sum total of its offensive capability - the airplane does so much more. It is absolutely worth the money.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,635
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
62,000 FEET PER MINUTE RATE OF CLIMB! Jesus, that's 11.7 MILES straight up in just 60 seconds! Or 704 MPH vertical climb. If that's a fact that thing should be able to shatter every time to climb record in the books.
Rate of climb isn't well defined. I could (and have, on many occasions) climb an F-14 (a dinosaur compared with the Raptor) from sea level to 40,000' in about 40 seconds, if I started at 400 KIAS. That matches the 60,000 feet per minute, but we're talking apples and, maybe, oranges, perhaps, grapefruit, when climb rates are given. You have to know the entry speed and altitude, and the final speed and altitude. As you go up in altitude, all airplanes lose thrust. Airplanes with sophisticated intake systems (F-14, F-15, SR-71) gain thrust with increasing airspeed, so managing the climb speed and mach number matter with those airplanes. Specific excess power varies with airspeed, but the Ps curves, which are both complex, and classified, vary by airplane design, by airspeed, drag count, atmospheric conditions and other parameters. So, for example, at 35,000', because of gains in thrust due to inlet efficiency, an F-14 will climb better at 1.4 IMN than it will at 0.9 IMN, even though the drag is much higher at higher mach. This isn't true for a Boeing, or for many fighters, but it's true when inlet design affects thrust. The Streak Eagle is a stunt plane. Stripped of paint, weapons, weapons racks, sensors, and loaded with just enough fuel to make the climb, it was flown on the coldest day they could get in Saint Louis (atmospherics matter, cold air makes more thrust). Very cool climb records. Zero tactical relevance. It's like taking my Mercedes, stripping out the interior, leaving only a racing seat in it, removing all the interior insulation and trim, all the electronics, and the entire dashboard, and taking everything out of the trunk, including insulation, and then putting 5 gallons in it and taking it to the strip - yep, goes a lot faster, but not really able to carry 4 people on the Autobahn at high speed any more...so, comparing that stunt version of my car against, say the BMW 750 that still has its interior isn't really a fair comparison... And that's what the Streak Eagle was: a stunt plane to set a record. And yes, the British Electric Lightning was built for a mission of defending England by a rapid climb and high speed intercept of incoming bombers during the Cold War. It couldn't go far. It couldn't turn to save its life, and didn't have much of a radar, but it sure was fast for a short time after takeoff! Again: so what? It was no good in establishing air superiority. It couldn't deliver air-ground weapons. It would lose a dogfight to nearly every contemporary fighter. It was like watching a Big-block Chevelle with a supercharger and skinny front drag tires. It did one thing really well... but it only did one thing...
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
1,286
Location
Douglas County, Colorado
Were any of these planes mentioned ever equipped with 105mm howitzer, able to carry a GBU-43/B MOAB, or able to land, stop, and takeoff again, unassisted, on a carrier flight deck? I think not. C-130
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
1,954
Location
Ca USA
I think what the silly over and under English Electric Lighting did best was make noise... if I were flying one I'd change my call sign to "chute" as in hit the parachute... I agree with Astro the F22 is worth the money... if you ain't flying a Raptor in aerial combat then your next colonoscopy will be 20mm cannon rounds...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top