Blue Angels and Thunderbirds

[Hilton]

Hi,

Just a quick report back about only 5 Blue Angels at Fleet Week and the
resumption of shows by the Thunderbirds after Solo 6 ejected.

Blue Angels: I was at the Salinas Airshow yesterday. I heard an announcer
mention that one of the performances was dedicated to a member of the Blue
Angels whose wife had passed away.

Thunderbirds: Only 5 were in the performance. I would guess that Capt
Stricklin is not able to fly shows. With the season ending in 3 weeks, it's
anyones guess if he'll fly again this year or next. I wish him everything
that would help him get back in the air. These guys are superb. I sure am
glad he didn't get hurt.

BTW: I saw the F-117A, but did anyone see the B-2? I didn't think it was
that stealthy.

Hilton

[Cecil E. Chapman]

"Hilton" wrote in message
> BTW: I saw the F-117A

Well, then,,,, it couldn't be all that stealthy if ya SAW it! <GRIN> wink...

I missed out on both events. Blue Angels 'cause we were getting a new car
for my wife (PT Cruiser she always wanted) and gotta admit that while I
don't mind the thought of FLYING to Salinas (I've been there a couple of
times),, the thought of DRIVING there was too unpleasant to contemplate.

Do you have any pictures??

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

[Hilton]

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> "Hilton" wrote in message
> I missed out on both events. Blue Angels 'cause we were getting a new car
> for my wife (PT Cruiser she always wanted) and gotta admit that while I
> don't mind the thought of FLYING to Salinas (I've been there a couple of
> times),, the thought of DRIVING there was too unpleasant to contemplate.

Just to get onto 101 from Fleet Week took 3 hours! However, the drive to
and from SNS was quite painless as it has been each year. Travis AFB was
still the best when it comes to traffic coordination BTW.


> Do you have any pictures??

No, but I recently visited their base at Nellis. Check out the pics at:
http://www.hiltonswebsite.com/Aviation/ThunderbirdsTour

Oh and how could I forget. Each Thunderbird had a camera in the cockpit and
they were showing the pilots CLOSE UP during each maneuver - way cool.

And, the highlight of the show, was a Stearman on steroids; i.e. with a jet!
Each time he needed a boost, he fired that jet - it's amazing to see a
bi-plane literally rocketting up. Even stranger when there is some guy
standing on the wing! I don't think I'll ever be able to watch non-jet
aerobatics again.

Also, it was good seeing Wayne back in the air...

Hilton

[Cecil E. Chapman]

> I don't think I'll ever be able to watch non-jet
> aerobatics again.

Ahh... do I detect that you will be going for a type rating for a jet
soon????

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

[BTIZ]

> BTW: I saw the F-117A, but did anyone see the B-2? I didn't think it was
> that stealthy.
>
> Hilton
>

well.. stealthy is not how easy it is to "see" with your Mark-I eyeball...
but painted black for night flying does help..

The STEALTH is how it looks on RADAR.. what type of radar return it
REFLECTS..

BT

[Bob Martin]

> > BTW: I saw the F-117A, but did anyone see the B-2? I didn't think it
was
> > that stealthy.
> >
> > Hilton
> >
>
> well.. stealthy is not how easy it is to "see" with your Mark-I eyeball...
> but painted black for night flying does help..
>
> The STEALTH is how it looks on RADAR.. what type of radar return it
> REFLECTS..


I may be wrong, but I think he was trying to make a bit of a joke...

[Nathan Gilliatt]

In article <HqDkb.54323$La.52035@fed1read02>,
"BTIZ" > wrote:

> > BTW: I saw the F-117A, but did anyone see the B-2? I didn't think it was
> > that stealthy.
>
> well.. stealthy is not how easy it is to "see" with your Mark-I eyeball...
> but painted black for night flying does help..
>
> The STEALTH is how it looks on RADAR.. what type of radar return it
> REFLECTS..

Black paint is for nighttime low observable (LO) qualities--visual
stealth. Seems to be a significant mission requirement for lots of
military aircraft. I initially was going to say "these days," but WW2
airplanes were sky blue on the bottom sometimes, weren't they?

I don't recall the details, but I think I saw someone actually trying
the active camouflage that Dale Brown (Day of the Cheetah?) put it a
book years ago. The aircraft essentially shows you a picture of what's
on the other side, making it disappear.

- Nathan

[Craig Prouse]

"Nathan Gilliatt" wrote:

> Black paint is for nighttime low observable (LO) qualities--visual
> stealth. Seems to be a significant mission requirement for lots of
> military aircraft. I initially was going to say "these days," but WW2
> airplanes were sky blue on the bottom sometimes, weren't they?

I understand that pink is actually a better color for night camouflage, but
there are problems with getting macho military pilots to fly pink airplanes,
so we make do with black paint instead.

[Nathan Gilliatt]

In article >,
Craig Prouse > wrote:

> I understand that pink is actually a better color for night camouflage, but
> there are problems with getting macho military pilots to fly pink airplanes,
> so we make do with black paint instead.

When I was in college, the campus feminist group had a print ad with a
fighter jet on their wall of shame, pointing out the obvious phallic
symbol. I wonder if painting it pink would have pleased them? Kind of
tough on the male ego, though--except maybe worse on the guy in the
other plane who just got shot down by the "girl" fighter...

[EDR]

In article >,
Nathan Gilliatt > wrote:

> I don't recall the details, but I think I saw someone actually trying
> the active camouflage that Dale Brown (Day of the Cheetah?) put it a
> book years ago. The aircraft essentially shows you a picture of what's
> on the other side, making it disappear.

Check Out Dean Ing's books.

[Big John]

Nathon

Navy painted their birds dark blue on the top so they would blend in
with the ocean and light blue on the bottom so they would blend in
with the sky. They also painted their birds and accepted the hundreds
of pounds of weight penalty, to help prevent corrosion from the salt
air. The Navy F2H3 (Banshee) I flew in 1955 was painted all gray. Not
sure when they changed their paint schemes over the years.

The Air Force ended up not painting most of their aircraft and took
the several hundred pounds of weight savings. They did paint some when
corrosion was a factor as I recall.

The stealth birds they fly at night, F-117, B-2 are painted black (of
course <G>

Any 'old' Navy types who remember when the Navy changed their paint
schemes?

Big John


On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:45:32 GMT, Nathan Gilliatt
> wrote:

>In article <HqDkb.54323$La.52035@fed1read02>,
> "BTIZ" > wrote:
>
>> > BTW: I saw the F-117A, but did anyone see the B-2? I didn't think it was
>> > that stealthy.
>>
>> well.. stealthy is not how easy it is to "see" with your Mark-I eyeball...
>> but painted black for night flying does help..
>>
>> The STEALTH is how it looks on RADAR.. what type of radar return it
>> REFLECTS..
>
>Black paint is for nighttime low observable (LO) qualities--visual
>stealth. Seems to be a significant mission requirement for lots of
>military aircraft. I initially was going to say "these days," but WW2
>airplanes were sky blue on the bottom sometimes, weren't they?
>
>I don't recall the details, but I think I saw someone actually trying
>the active camouflage that Dale Brown (Day of the Cheetah?) put it a
>book years ago. The aircraft essentially shows you a picture of what's
>on the other side, making it disappear.
>
> - Nathan

[Hilton]

Hilton wrote:
> And, the highlight of the show, was a Stearman on steroids; i.e. with a
jet!
> Each time he needed a boost, he fired that jet - it's amazing to see a
> bi-plane literally rocketting up. Even stranger when there is some guy
> standing on the wing! I don't think I'll ever be able to watch non-jet
> aerobatics again.

Allow myself to correct... myself:

"In 1996, Jimmy Franklin debuted his latest project, the world's only
Jet-powered Waco biplane and will perform this year showing the Salinas
Valley residents what a customized aircraft can do! With the help of Les
Shockley (creator of the "Shockwave" jet truck.hey, his son is at the show
too.) they modified Jimmy's 1940 Waco with a T-38 (J-85) jet engine along
with a 450 horse power Pratt & Whitney radical prop engine, toss in 4500
pounds of thrust and over 2000 horse power and combined, it equals a
performance no one has ever seen or even attempted in this type of plane
before."

Hilton

[G.R. Patterson III]

Nathan Gilliatt wrote:
>
> I initially was going to say "these days," but WW2
> airplanes were sky blue on the bottom sometimes, weren't they?

Paint jobs were an art form during that period. The Germans actually came up
with a paint that was durable but could be wiped off easily if the aircraft was
transferred to an area that required a different paint job. Flat black or dark
brown was used for night fighters. The British used a glaring medium blue for
high altitude aircraft; it was startlingly vivid at low altitudes but the planes
disappeared at 40,000' or more.

Allied aircraft used in the desert were painted a pinkish color that blended in
with the North African sand. There is or was recently a P-40 on the warbird
circuit painted this way. It caused quite a stir. The Germans used a very light
tan for the same reason, usually with a grey underside and splotches of brown on
the top surfaces. I once saw a photo of Joachim Marseille flying a 109 over
Tunisia taken from above. You could see two crosses and barely make out the
cockpit; the rest disappeared in the scrub.

You are likely thinking of the standard U.S. Navy paint job, which at one time
used sky blue for the underside of the planes.

> I don't recall the details, but I think I saw someone actually trying
> the active camouflage that Dale Brown (Day of the Cheetah?) put it a
> book years ago. The aircraft essentially shows you a picture of what's
> on the other side, making it disappear.

National Geographic had a recent article that stated that suits for ground
forces are being tested that accomplish this. They're basically made of fiber
optic threads. The ends of the threads are carefully placed to conduct light
from one side of the suit to the other, making the soldier nearly disappear.
They aren't good enough for issue yet, it seems.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

[Jeff Franks]

> BTW: I saw the F-117A, but did anyone see the B-2? I didn't think it was
> that stealthy.


But you have to admit. Seeing that B-2 fly is freaking WIERD! Even more so
than the first time you saw a Harrier do a performance, which is getting old
now (Can't believe I just said that :)

The B-2 just doesn't look like something that should fly.

[BTIZ]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
...
> > > BTW: I saw the F-117A, but did anyone see the B-2? I didn't think it
> was
> > > that stealthy.
> > >
> > > Hilton
> > >
> >
> > well.. stealthy is not how easy it is to "see" with your Mark-I
eyeball...
> > but painted black for night flying does help..
> >
> > The STEALTH is how it looks on RADAR.. what type of radar return it
> > REFLECTS..
>
>
> I may be wrong, but I think he was trying to make a bit of a joke...
>

you could be right...

[John Galban]

"Hilton" > wrote in message t>...
<snip>
>1940 Waco with a T-38 (J-85) jet engine along
> with a 450 horse power Pratt & Whitney radical prop engine...

With a J-85 in the back, there's nothing radical about the P&W :-)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
>
> National Geographic had a recent article that stated that suits for ground
> forces are being tested that accomplish this. They're basically made of fiber
> optic threads. The ends of the threads are carefully placed to conduct light
> from one side of the suit to the other, making the soldier nearly disappear.
> They aren't good enough for issue yet, it seems.
>

I've seen one of these in action. They're pretty darned good. In
the open, you can see a blurry human shaped outline of the suit. With
some cover, I imagine the wearer would just disappear.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

"Hilton" > wrote in message et>...
>
> BTW: I saw the F-117A, but did anyone see the B-2? I didn't think it was
> that stealthy.

<G> Back in the days before the F-117 was allowed to do static
displays at AFB Open Houses, the local Air Force bases would rope off
a large section of ramp and hang a sign on the rope that said "F-117A
Stealth Fighter". They would also include 3 sets of chocks where the
wheels were supposed to be. I was amazed at how many people fell for
it.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Bob Fry]

"Hilton" > writes:

> And, the highlight of the show, was a Stearman on steroids; i.e. with a jet!

The same guy was at Oshkosh (not a Stearman btw). What's really weird
is the sound: jet engine noise, but still with propeller racket.
Really shows the difference between engine and prop noise.

[Jay Honeck]

> The B-2 just doesn't look like something that should fly.

I had the privilege of seeing the B-2 from *above*, flying out of Oshkosh a
couple of years ago. He was coming in for a low pass, and I was departing
to the south.

It looks even stranger from that angle, hard as that is to imagine.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Bob Fry > wrote:

> "Hilton" > writes:
>
> > And, the highlight of the show, was a Stearman on steroids; i.e. with a jet!
>
> The same guy was at Oshkosh (not a Stearman btw). What's really weird
> is the sound: jet engine noise, but still with propeller racket.
> Really shows the difference between engine and prop noise.


Yes -- that is Big Jim Franklin -- "the wacko from Waco in a Waco." The
plane is a (highly modified) Waco UPF-7.

[Morgans]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Bob Fry > wrote:
>
> > "Hilton" > writes:
> >
> > > And, the highlight of the show, was a Stearman on steroids; i.e. with
a jet!
> >
> > The same guy was at Oshkosh (not a Stearman btw). What's really weird
> > is the sound: jet engine noise, but still with propeller racket.
> > Really shows the difference between engine and prop noise.
>
>
> Yes -- that is Big Jim Franklin -- "the wacko from Waco in a Waco." The
> plane is a (highly modified) Waco UPF-7.

When I see his routine, I have a big stupid grin. I look around, and see
the same grin on everyone else. It is just too funny!
--
Jim in NC

[James Blakely]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> National Geographic had a recent article that stated that suits for ground
> forces are being tested that accomplish this. They're basically made of
fiber
> optic threads. The ends of the threads are carefully placed to conduct
light
> from one side of the suit to the other, making the soldier nearly
disappear.
> They aren't good enough for issue yet, it seems.


Holy cow! I wonder how much that suit would cost!