They are simply the best.

With "Fly by Wire" aircraft is it possible to program them to fly in formation as a unit to clearance minimums or do you think they are flying that tight by each hand?

They are flying by hand. "Fly by wire" refers to how the control stick sends electrical inputs to the servos vs the stick sending control inputs via direct mechanical linkage to the servos.

I got nearly that close a couple times in my USAF career when I was an instructor in T-38s. We would be flying through thick clouds and I didn't want to lose sight and go "lost wingman." Our normal fingertip formation was three foot wing tip clearance. I backed up a couple feet and moved into about one foot wingtip clearance until we broke out of the weather.

BTW, while the Blue Angels are more showy to watch, the Thunderbirds fly a little more precisely.

And they do all that without a G-Suit by the way.

In regards to which team is better - I would like to see the Thunderbirds try a carrier trap at night...

Regardless.....on the edge and something about splitting a blonde cunt hair.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
And they do all that without a G-Suit by the way.

In regards to which team is better - I would like to see the Thunderbirds try a carrier trap at night...

Zero issues with that. The USAF and USN have aviator exchange programs and have had for years. However, when they tried to integrate USAF and USN pilot training, the Navy guys had a VERY hard time keeping up with the USAF training pace.

I will say again, the Blue Angels have a more crowd pleasing and showier routine, but the Thunderbirds are more precise in their flying--but not as showy.

Thunderbirds videos from in cockpit. The first one shows just how uptight we USAF guys are. Make sure your speakers are turned up for this first one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJd_Hyfgekw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hoNqEq-NPNA

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
With "Fly by Wire" aircraft is it possible to program them to fly in formation as a unit to clearance minimums or do you think they are flying that tight by each hand?

Bobster,

Yours is a common misconception. Fly by wire is simply a slang term to describe a way for the pilot to communicate with his flight controls.

In the most simple terms there are three ways primary ways for the pilot to communicate with his flight controls.

1. Direct cable and pulley. The pilot makes a control input which moves a cable and that moves the flight controls.

2. Hydraulics, the pilot makes a control input which which moves a cable, which opens or closes a hydraulic valve which actuates a flight control. Most have limiting factors such as airspeed or phase of flight in which hydraulic pressure is limited or increased. This might be a rudder limiter due to high airspeed or an outboard aileron lock out based on indicated airspeed.

3. Computerized flight control systems,"fly by wire". The pilot makes a control input. The control input is read through position senors in the control. This sends a signal to the primary flight control computer which reads the phase of flight, aircraft configuration, altitude, airspeed, G load ETC then puts the corrected input into the flight control surface.

You can not "program" the fly by wire system to fly a tight formation. The fly by wire system is simply a tool for the pilot to accurately communicate with his flight controls.

I worked in in a Navy F/A-18 test outfit as a civilian for a few years.

USAF & Navy tactics are totally different. Dog fighting it guns only would be tough for some Navy mid-career pilots (not working at Top Gun or in a squadron on deployment) to keep up with the average USAF pilot in a dog fight.

That and the big-mouth F-16 is superior to the Super Hornet.

I know this because the national guard units in Fresno regularly come down to dog fight here in the Mojave with the active duty Navy guys.

USAF Tactics are quite a bit different, the aircraft is quite a bit different.

The Raptor on the other hand brings entirely differnent set of things to the table.

Man, you guys are drinking a bunch of that Air Force Kool-Aid. Do you prefer the purple or the green bug juice?

Tell you what. Let's take 16 Hornets vs 4 Raptors in an air-to-air fight and see how things turn out..........

16 versus 4, with the newest Super Hornet patch wearers or mid career fleet aviatiors. I'd pick Navy/Marines every time.

16 verus 4 with rag grads versus regular USAF dudes in squadrons that deploy. Be tough.

4 Raptors is just about the entire AF inventory isn't it?

OOPs! I apologize. I had to go back and check my numbers. The 4 Raptors I mentioned is just the number of A/C flyable in any given month. They do actually own more than that.

INTJ; your comment about the services trying to integrate flight training is the biggest bunch of hooey going! First of all they never considered integrating both services into one syllabus, but the Marines did send some number of Marines through AF flight training back in the 60s. The program failed because, at the time AF did not do instrument training beyond basic instruments during flight training so sent pilots to a separate instrument school after flight training. In the Navy & Marines we got our instrument cards halfway through advanced flight training and when we got our wings we were fully qualified Naval Aviators. How do I know this? My roommate at the Naval Academy went Marines and then went through AF flight training. Plus, all your bases are welded to earth so he never got to land on a moving target until he was in a regular Marine squadron. There were some other deficiencies as I recall like no, or very little, bombing or gunnery syllabus in AF flight training, but you did get to fly supersonic a couple times. Whoopee! We all thought you were actually secretly training pilots for American Airlines!

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
With "Fly by Wire" aircraft is it possible to program them to fly in formation as a unit to clearance minimums or do you think they are flying that tight by each hand?

As I remember, the Blues adjust the bungees (stick forces) for a nose down force - otherwise there is too much slop as the plane wants to fly with neutral stick forces. That way they have more precise control during their formation flying. Told to me by a Blues pilot 15 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by A7drvr:
INTJ; your comment about the services trying to integrate flight training is the biggest bunch of hooey going! First of all they never considered integrating both services into one syllabus, but the Marines did send some number of Marines through AF flight training back in the 60s. The program failed because, at the time AF did not do instrument training beyond basic instruments during flight training so sent pilots to a separate instrument school after flight training. In the Navy & Marines we got our instrument cards halfway through advanced flight training and when we got our wings we were fully qualified Naval Aviators. How do I know this? My roommate at the Naval Academy went Marines and then went through AF flight training. Plus, all your bases are welded to earth so he never got to land on a moving target until he was in a regular Marine squadron. There were some other deficiencies as I recall like no, or very little, bombing or gunnery syllabus in AF flight training, but you did get to fly supersonic a couple times. Whoopee! We all thought you were actually secretly training pilots for American Airlines!

Let's move ahead 30 years. I worked at HQ AETC when the mandate to integrate came down in the 90s. I watched them try to integrate. I transferred funding to the Navy for the USAF students they trained in T-44s. I helped the Navy build a costing model so they would know how much to charge us. I watched them send Navy students to USAF pilot training bases.

Later I got to fly with a Navy trained (T-34s) student in a T-1. I was a T1 PIT IP "rebluing" by flying with real students at a UPT base for a couple weeks. They made us do that so all our training of instructor candidates wouldn't skew our perspective. This guy was so bad I had to watch him when flying straight and level.

After the sortie I asked the schedulers if all the Navy guys were that bad, and why didn't the Navy wash him out of basic? They told me he was the worst. They said most of the Navy trained guys would eventually do okay, some well, but they always started way behind their USAF trained classmates.

I had earlier learned that the USAF students going from the Navy T-44 program to USAF C-130 training didn't do as well as the students who had trained in the T-1 before going to the C-130.

To back up, when we were asked to research integrating USAF and USN pilot training, we--both USAF and USN types--found it was not a good idea. Since I had built the coating models for both services I saw first hand that there was no monetary savings to be had my integrating the programs. Of course, this was during the Clinton administration and they ignored the recommendations of the experts and forced the integration.

I don't know if they ever got it sorted out. We in the USAF hoped that maybe we would adopt the Navy's view on flight publications, and I think the Navy hoped they could adopt some of the USAFs time efficiency. That didn't happen. The Navy wound up with more regulations and the USAF had a hard time keeping the time efficiency.

There was no need to integrate. They USAF struggled to get Navy trained pilots up to speed and the Navy wasn't happy with with USAF trained pilots. Each service had cost efficient, though very different, programs that created pilots who were the best in the world. Why they thought they needed to screw with that I'll never know, other than the Clintons always despised to military.

I am not sure how they are doing things now. Maybe they did get the integrating worked out. Maybe they canned the idea all together. Regardless, the USAF and USN still ha e the best pilots in the world.

Oh, landing on carriers? Many USAF pilots have had exchange tours with the Navy and they did just fine with carrier landings. It's just another skill to be learned..........

After my first deployment my squadron and our sister squadron each received an AF exchange pilot, both of them Majors. Both of them came out of F-4s and were good sticks. After their first night carrier traps though we had to issue them new oversize helmets: their eyes were bugged out so far they couldn't lower the visor! Plus, they kept calling the A-7 a "fighter!" WTF!

I think USN/USMC/USCG maritime pilot candidates are doing a stint at USAF in big airplanes after secondary before the RAG.

Some Navy/Marine kids are doing USAF after secondary or maybe for secondary.

I met a CALAIRGuard LTCOL that used to be an old div-o of mine in Prowlers, he flew Raptors and said that the transition back and forth from EA-6B to F/A-18 to Raptor was pretty rough.

He was not a patch wearer, one of the NATOPS-O's fought him and got schooled, and the kid was a 28 year old post fleet tour guy. Had only been in VX-??? for a couple weeks, straight out of Gulf. Kid wasn't a patch wearer either.

Kid said he got to dump speed and the Raptor overshot him and he shot him in the ass once, but that was it. I think that is a classic F/A-18 trick.

If you watched the video link I posted a couple threads down, the guy explains how an experienced Gen 4 fighter driver can take out an inexperienced Raptor driver. What happens is the Raptor is out turning the F-15/F-16/F-18/whatever, but the newb is not satisfied with his Raptor's turn rate--which is almost double these other jets. So the newb pulls harder and engages the Raptor's thrust vectoring. At that point the Raptor quits flying normally and sort of pivots and hangs. Then the Gen 4 guy goes up vertical, pitches down, and takes a shot on the Raptor.

Of course, the Raptor has most likely all ready killed the Gen 4 fighter BVR with an AAMRAM..........

quote:

Originally posted by A7drvr:
After my first deployment my squadron and our sister squadron each received an AF exchange pilot, both of them Majors. Both of them came out of F-4s and were good sticks. After their first night carrier traps though we had to issue them new oversize helmets: their eyes were bugged out so far they couldn't lower the visor! Plus, they kept calling the A-7 a "fighter!" WTF!

Like I said, carrier landings are just another skill to learn. Though listening to Navy guys talk about it, I doubt anyone ever really enjoys landing on carriers.......

Back in the day there was a Navy F-4 driver who transitioned to the St Joe ANG unit flying C-130s. He became an instructor for C-130 combat tactics. He described how his eyes were opened doing night assault landings in C-130s. He said his level of concentration was just as high as when he did carrier landings in the F-4.

That always seemed a bit patronizing to me, but then again I saw skills heavy drivers used frequently make fighter guys sweat. My thought was because the C-130 was less responsive than a fighter you had to plan further ahead than a guy flying a quick responding fighter was used to, especially when we were aggressively maneuvering the Herk in steep terrain.

I flew three USAF aircraft during my career as an aircraft commander and/or IP: The C-130, the T-38, and the T-1. The easiest to fly was the T-38. It went where you pointed it without thinking about it. It was the fastest by far and the least forgiving. The C-130 was the hardest, requiring both hands and both feet. The T-1 was a typical business jet. I went from flying a four-engined turbo-prop at low level and doing airdrops to flying fingertip formation and doing fighter type maneuvers in the T-38.

My point in saying all that is most guys can learn to most things in most aircraft, though the skill sets are VERY different. And yes, I would put landing in a carrier at the top of the list, though I have absolutely no doubt I could have mastered that skill. I wish I would have had the opportunity--that is, WITHOUT having to be in the Navy......

Thanks for the opportunity for some hangar flying!! I don't get to do that much anymore.........

The Spectre Gunship C-130s come to town every once in a while and play kill-f*** games with the squadron I worked for.

Different tactics used by them against fighters make them fairly deadly. That and you have 10-20 people working on the result.