Blue Angels vs Thunderbirds

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice

Originally Posted By: john_pifer

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Even if you skipped the missile engagement, and went straight to BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvers), the F-22 has all the cards - it out-accelerates, out turns, out climbs and simply out-performs everything else by a long shot.

Even the latest from Russia?

Why so few F-22 built ?

We spend too much money on other wasteful things.

 

[TheLawnRanger]

I saw a training film that showed that no matter what type of fighter you're flying, the best thing to do when approached from behind by an enemy fighter is to slow down immediately and increase elevation enough to allow your opponent to fly under you. When the enemy flies in front of you, unleash a "Cruise" missile into their afterburners. Then if still feeling a need for speed, buzz the control tower at Mach 2.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Best thing is to never loose sight of the bandit... if you loose sight then you have already lost the fight... You want spot the enemy coming on your 6 and turn in to them to attack and go to gun gun gun... I wouldn't give up energy and pull up like a dweeb... life for a fighter pilot is energy and one must always manage your aircraft's energy better than your opponent... Still valid today Dicta Boelcke is a list of fundamental aerial maneuvers of aerial combat formulated by First World War German flying ace, Oswald Boelcke 1. Secure the benefits of aerial combat (speed, altitude, numerical superiority, position) before attacking. Always attack from the sun. 2. If you start the attack, bring it to an end. 3. Fire the machine gun up close and only if you are sure to target your opponent. 4. Do not lose sight of the enemy. 5. In any form of attack, an approach to the opponent from behind is required. 6. If the enemy attacks you in a dive, do not try to dodge the attack, but turn to the attacker. 7. If you are above the enemy lines, always keep your own retreat in mind. 8. For squadrons: In principle attack only in groups of four to six. If the fight breaks up in noisy single battles, make sure that not many comrades pounce on an opponent

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by grampi

I don't know how many times I've heard people say "the Blue Angels are better than the Thunderbirds". I just saw the Blue Angels perform at the Dayton air show this past Sunday and I still say the Thunderbirds put on a better show...

There is close. And then, there is Blue Angels CLOSE!

 

[CT8]

The Blue Angles are the best of the best. Naval Aviators land their planes on ships. In the dark when, the ship is moving.

 

[Win]

I can't even begin to imagine how mentally and physically fatiguing it must be to maintain a formation that close, while maneuvering.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted by Win

I can't even begin to imagine how mentally and physically fatiguing it must be to maintain a formation that close, while maneuvering.

+1 on that.

 

[zuluplus30]

In my short 30 year aviation career, I've seen both the Blues and the T-Birds approaching a dozen times. From the casual eye, they are both great to watch. From an aviator standpoint, however, Astro14 is spot on: there is SIMPLY NO COMPARISON. The T-Birds make things pretty. The Blues make your jaw drop.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by zuluplus30

In my short 30 year aviation career, I've seen both the Blues and the T-Birds approaching a dozen times. From the casual eye, they are both great to watch. From an aviator standpoint, however, Astro14 is spot on: there is SIMPLY NO COMPARISON. The T-Birds make things pretty. The Blues make your jaw drop.

I don't know, I would say it's the other way around...the T-Birds do things that make my jaw drop, as they do more impressive stuff with the F-16s...the BAs flying in ultra close formation is the pretty stuff to me...

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by grampi

Originally Posted by zuluplus30

In my short 30 year aviation career, I've seen both the Blues and the T-Birds approaching a dozen times. From the casual eye, they are both great to watch. From an aviator standpoint, however, Astro14 is spot on: there is SIMPLY NO COMPARISON. The T-Birds make things pretty. The Blues make your jaw drop.

I don't know, I would say it's the other way around...the T-Birds do things that make my jaw drop, as they do more impressive stuff with the F-16s...the BAs flying in ultra close formation is the pretty stuff to me...

You're right. You don't know. What you see in the Blues, what you call pretty, takes greater skill, precision, and concentration. That's what is genuinely impressive. To a pilot. Who has flown fighters. The Blues fly maneuvers that the Thunderbirds can't. The stuff that makes your jaw drop, Grampi, is the result of the power to weight ratio of the F-16. Not the skill of the pilots.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Astro14

Originally Posted by grampi

Originally Posted by zuluplus30

In my short 30 year aviation career, I've seen both the Blues and the T-Birds approaching a dozen times. From the casual eye, they are both great to watch. From an aviator standpoint, however, Astro14 is spot on: there is SIMPLY NO COMPARISON. The T-Birds make things pretty. The Blues make your jaw drop.

I don't know, I would say it's the other way around...the T-Birds do things that make my jaw drop, as they do more impressive stuff with the F-16s...the BAs flying in ultra close formation is the pretty stuff to me...

You're right. You don't know. What you see in the Blues, what you call pretty, takes greater skill, precision, and concentration. That's what is genuinely impressive. To a pilot. Who has flown fighters. The Blues fly maneuvers that the Thunderbirds can't. The stuff that makes your jaw drop, Grampi, is the result of the power to weight ratio of the F-16. Not the skill of the pilots.

I still don't believe the BA pilots are more skilled than the TB pilots, and I believe the TB pilots could do exactly the same things as the BA pilots do IF THEY WANTED TO. Yes, the F-16 is a more impressive plane than the F-18, as I've been saying all along, which is why it's more impressive to watch...

 

[Astro14]

Well, I am sorry, but you're wrong on both counts. The F/A-18 does things (slow flight, handling, high AOA) that the F-16 simply can't. As a result, the Blue Angels fly a show that the Thunderbirds can't. Inverted flight, slow flight, close flight. The Blues have a few energy (thrust/weight performance) maneuvers that equal the Thunderbirds, but zooming up high takes the show away from the crowd and the Blues design their show to stay close to the crowd, not zoom away from it. The Thunderbirds show is designed to impress amateurs. Clearly that's worked. The Blue Angels impress both amateurs and pilots. The T-Birds have never, ever flown as close together as the Blues. That part takes real skill. Real piloting skill. You claim that they can. But they never have.

 

[Mr Nice]

The Thunderbirds are kind of boring to watch. I like the Demo F-16 solo pilots from Utah perform a 10 minute show doing crazy high G maneuvers.

 

[Astro14]

As I have said before, seeing the Thunderbirds inspired me to become a pilot. They put on a great show. But there are some important differences between the teams.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Astro14

Well, I am sorry, but you're wrong on both counts. The F/A-18 does things (slow flight, handling, high AOA) that the F-16 simply can't. As a result, the Blue Angels fly a show that the Thunderbirds can't. Inverted flight, slow flight, close flight. The Blues have a few energy (thrust/weight performance) maneuvers that equal the Thunderbirds, but zooming up high takes the show away from the crowd and the Blues design their show to stay close to the crowd, not zoom away from it. The Thunderbirds show is designed to impress amateurs. Clearly that's worked. The Blue Angels impress both amateurs and pilots. The T-Birds have never, ever flown as close together as the Blues. That part takes real skill. Real piloting skill. You claim that they can. But they never have.

I know your opinion is highly regarded in here because you were a pilot, I get that, but that doesn't always mean you're right about everything. You and others can be as impressed as you want about the BAs, and I will continue to be more impressed with the TBs...besides, you're clearly biased...

 

[Astro14]

I've served with the USAF. Been through their schools and training. I've deployed with them. I'm experienced, with a variety of joint tours and exercises. I've praised the USAF, and USAF aircraft, in multiple posts. That demonstrates both my experience and objectivity. Since we are talking about fighter pilots, and flying, and I am a fighter pilot, that also makes me experienced and credible. You've got zero experience with the Navy, or in the cockpit. If anyone has questionable objectivity in this discussion, it's not me.

 

[Win]

Astro, Are there any reference marks on the airplanes to help the non lead pilots hold their relative positions?

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Astro14

I've served with the USAF. Been through their schools and training. I've deployed with them. I'm experienced, with a variety of joint tours and exercises. I've praised the USAF, and USAF aircraft, in multiple posts. That demonstrates both my experience and objectivity. Since we are talking about fighter pilots, and flying, and I am a fighter pilot, that also makes me experienced and credible. You've got zero experience with the Navy, or in the cockpit. If anyone has questionable objectivity in this discussion, it's not me.

If you say so...

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by grampi

Originally Posted by Astro14

I've served with the USAF. Been through their schools and training. I've deployed with them. I'm experienced, with a variety of joint tours and exercises. I've praised the USAF, and USAF aircraft, in multiple posts. That demonstrates both my experience and objectivity. Since we are talking about fighter pilots, and flying, and I am a fighter pilot, that also makes me experienced and credible. You've got zero experience with the Navy, or in the cockpit. If anyone has questionable objectivity in this discussion, it's not me.

If you say so...

You started this whole thread with this:

Originally Posted by grampi

I don't know how many times I've heard people say "the Blue Angels are better than the Thunderbirds". I just saw the Blue Angels perform at the Dayton air show this past Sunday and I still say the Thunderbirds put on a better show...

I'm tired of your trolling. You're like a kid that's read car magazines, but never driven a car, and has no license, telling us all what car is better. And here is someone with lots of driving experience disagreeing with you.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Astro14

Originally Posted by grampi

Originally Posted by Astro14

I've served with the USAF. Been through their schools and training. I've deployed with them. I'm experienced, with a variety of joint tours and exercises. I've praised the USAF, and USAF aircraft, in multiple posts. That demonstrates both my experience and objectivity. Since we are talking about fighter pilots, and flying, and I am a fighter pilot, that also makes me experienced and credible. You've got zero experience with the Navy, or in the cockpit. If anyone has questionable objectivity in this discussion, it's not me.

If you say so...

You started this whole thread with this:

Originally Posted by grampi

I don't know how many times I've heard people say "the Blue Angels are better than the Thunderbirds". I just saw the Blue Angels perform at the Dayton air show this past Sunday and I still say the Thunderbirds put on a better show...

I'm tired of your trolling. You're like a kid that's read car magazines, but never driven a car, and has no license, telling us all what car is better. And here is someone with lots of driving experience disagreeing with you.

I've been reading posts from you and others claiming how Navy pilots are the best in the world because their Blue Angels fly tighter formations than the Thunderbirds do, or because they land on carriers...the only reason the TBs don't fly as tight of a formation as the BAs is because someone up the chain of command won't allow them to. It certainly isn't because the pilots, or their planes don't have the ability to do it. And landing on a carriers only means that Naval pilots have more difficult landings. It doesn't mean they are better pilots. Aerial combat is what determines how good the aircraft and their pilots are, and in that realm, the U.S. Air Force is the best in the world, and that's a fact.