View Poll Results: Thunderbirds vs The Blue Angels
Thunderbirds
19
17.92%
Blue Angels
44
41.51%
Both
43
40.57%
Voters: 106. You may not vote on this poll
USAF Thunderbirds vs The Blue Angels
06-21-2008, 04:57 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-14-2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,240
Easy...Angels...
It's not just being able to land on a carrier...its landing on a carrier in storm seas...at night...with just enough fuel to make one landing...you see the ship...its pitching this way and that way...it drops down behind a large swell...and loose sight of it...you have to do your best to control the plane...look for the ship as it comes up into sight...get your speed just right...the wind pushes you off course...you have to land...THIS is one of the most difficult landings in flying, no matter what anyone says. I've never seen an A/F pilot do a rough seas carrier landing.
It's not just being able to land on a carrier...its landing on a carrier in storm seas...at night...with just enough fuel to make one landing...you see the ship...its pitching this way and that way...it drops down behind a large swell...and loose sight of it...you have to do your best to control the plane...look for the ship as it comes up into sight...get your speed just right...the wind pushes you off course...you have to land...THIS is one of the most difficult landings in flying, no matter what anyone says. I've never seen an A/F pilot do a rough seas carrier landing.
06-21-2008, 10:14 PM
#33
Banned
Join Date: 10-24-2006
Location: The Show-Me State
Posts: 1,761
In all fairness to the T-birds, Air Force pilots are simply not trained to land on aircraft carriers because it is not essential to their mission parameters. I've also never seen a Blue Angels performance where a carrier trap was performed!
I like the narration in the Blue Angels performances, but I really like the low-level, high speed flying and tighter aerobatics the T-birds can perform better with the Falcon. I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more interesting shows out of both of them when the F-35 replaces the Hornet and Falcon. I highly doubt we'll ever see a Super Hornet fly in the Blue Angels. It's too new and heavy to use in their show, and the unit tends to use the older planes that are right on the edge of the scrapyard.
I like the narration in the Blue Angels performances, but I really like the low-level, high speed flying and tighter aerobatics the T-birds can perform better with the Falcon. I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more interesting shows out of both of them when the F-35 replaces the Hornet and Falcon. I highly doubt we'll ever see a Super Hornet fly in the Blue Angels. It's too new and heavy to use in their show, and the unit tends to use the older planes that are right on the edge of the scrapyard.
06-21-2008, 11:59 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-13-2006
Location: USA
Posts: 378
actually the high low performances are determined by weather conditions and and local ground obsticals... we get tnhe ANGLES up here every year for SEAFAIR... alot of times the come up here to NAS Whidbey to do a pre show show for the sailors at the airstation... garentee thay can fly low... they have bent the top of my 100' fir tree in my front yard. i look and see if i can find some pics
06-22-2008, 07:52 AM
#35
Banned
Join Date: 10-24-2006
Location: The Show-Me State
Posts: 1,761
actually the high low performances are determined by weather conditions and and local ground obsticals... we get tnhe ANGLES up here every year for SEAFAIR... alot of times the come up here to NAS Whidbey to do a pre show show for the sailors at the airstation... garentee thay can fly low... they have bent the top of my 100' fir tree in my front yard. i look and see if i can find some pics
I think with the age of the airframes both teams use, they're all pretty brave to go up in those jets.
06-22-2008, 11:27 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-20-2006
Location: Centralia, Missouri
Posts: 1,707
Both are very capable fighters, and both perform their job at a very high level. Let's not forget these two planes are on the same team! I've seen both MANY times, and both put on a great show. I don't think you can make a case that one is head and shoulders above the other. Sure, you can say a hornet can't turn with a falcon, but a falcon doesn't have the payload ability of the hornet, or the super hornet for that matter. These two planes are not made for the same mission, so comparison is apples to oranges. While the falcon does have some air to ground capability, it can't compare with the hornet. And the hornet is not quite the dog fighter as the falcon. One thing is for sure, if I'm in the heat of a battle, I wouldn't be disappointed to see either of these jets in the area. Just my 
06-22-2008, 08:26 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-13-2006
Location: USA
Posts: 378
ok... navy pride... the ANGLES RULE... the f16 has ONE designated mission "F
fighter... the FA18 (HORNET/SUPER H) and EFA18 (GROWLER) is a designated multi mission aircraft... "F" fighter "A" attack (big bombs) "E" electronic warfare... plus it is bigger and weighs more (beefier to land on carriers... f16s would break into little pieces if they had to land as hard.
the premier AF aircraft prior to the RAPTOR was the F16 (still an "F") except the strike eagle is able to carry a HUGH bomb load and can launce missiles at satalites. it held the world speed to altitude record for years (it might still) for years... has never been shot down in a dog fight. navy pride but the f15 is superior to all except the RAPTOR.
NAVY ANGELS were flying the F4 (love the PHANTOM, big, ugly and dumb... took two guys to manage it)... hugh monster that was really never ment to be a manuvering fighter... it just was faster than anything else at the time and could run away if it had to... the TBIRDS were using the F100 during the same period, not a very good plane for stunts... TBs had a hard time with them. not sure that the f16 was even on par with some of the later soviet aircraft... the f15 most definately was/is... if they can for sure correct the structural problem that developed last year.
the F18 SUPER HORNET airframe is a much larger verson of the F18 and is going to be around for decades... that being said the F18 that the ANGLES fly is not an SH and it is actually much lighter than the fleet service model as i am sure the TB F16 FALCON is.
again 36 yrs active duty and working for dept of the Navy...
ANGLES RULE
GO NAVY
ps... if the HORNET can stand up to the MARINE flyrs... it can stand up to anything...
heard an AF pilot once say "i would never accept an aircraft that bleeds as much as that one"... refering to an F4 with the normal (navy/marine normal) hydralic stains... wimps
fighter... the FA18 (HORNET/SUPER H) and EFA18 (GROWLER) is a designated multi mission aircraft... "F" fighter "A" attack (big bombs) "E" electronic warfare... plus it is bigger and weighs more (beefier to land on carriers... f16s would break into little pieces if they had to land as hard.
the premier AF aircraft prior to the RAPTOR was the F16 (still an "F") except the strike eagle is able to carry a HUGH bomb load and can launce missiles at satalites. it held the world speed to altitude record for years (it might still) for years... has never been shot down in a dog fight. navy pride but the f15 is superior to all except the RAPTOR.
NAVY ANGELS were flying the F4 (love the PHANTOM, big, ugly and dumb... took two guys to manage it)... hugh monster that was really never ment to be a manuvering fighter... it just was faster than anything else at the time and could run away if it had to... the TBIRDS were using the F100 during the same period, not a very good plane for stunts... TBs had a hard time with them. not sure that the f16 was even on par with some of the later soviet aircraft... the f15 most definately was/is... if they can for sure correct the structural problem that developed last year.
the F18 SUPER HORNET airframe is a much larger verson of the F18 and is going to be around for decades... that being said the F18 that the ANGLES fly is not an SH and it is actually much lighter than the fleet service model as i am sure the TB F16 FALCON is.
again 36 yrs active duty and working for dept of the Navy...
ANGLES RULE
GO NAVY
ps... if the HORNET can stand up to the MARINE flyrs... it can stand up to anything...
heard an AF pilot once say "i would never accept an aircraft that bleeds as much as that one"... refering to an F4 with the normal (navy/marine normal) hydralic stains... wimps
06-22-2008, 11:41 PM
#38
Platinum Member
Join Date: 05-09-2006
Location: "Upland" Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 6,805
06-23-2008, 06:50 AM
#39
Banned
Join Date: 10-24-2006
Location: The Show-Me State
Posts: 1,761
Actually, the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds BOTH flew the Phantom during the same time period. Both teams went away from the Phantom after 1973 because of the oil crisis. All 6 of the Thunderbird's T-38s used as much fuel as ONE Phantom during the entire show. The T-Birds went to the F-16 after the terrible Diamond Crash in '81 or '82 I think.
The F-100 wasn't a bad plane for aerobatics. It was the F-105 that they'd used for one season that gave them problems and killed an aviator, so they went back to the 100 until the switch to the Phantoms.
The Navy used the A-4 after the Phantoms. Ugly little plane, but very maneuverable.
The F-100 wasn't a bad plane for aerobatics. It was the F-105 that they'd used for one season that gave them problems and killed an aviator, so they went back to the 100 until the switch to the Phantoms.
The Navy used the A-4 after the Phantoms. Ugly little plane, but very maneuverable.
