Blue Angel and Thunderbird flyover

bmac said:
It's very simple....50% of the voters in the state are registered Democrats while only 22% are registered Republicans. The remaining 28% are either unaffiliated or affiliated with a minor party. It used to be the Democratic strongholds were concentrated in the urban areas of NYC, Albany, Syracuse and Buffalo (public assistance havens). It's not that way any longer, in fact only five western counties in the state still have a Republican plurality and they are eclipsed in population by most every other region of the state. New York is a huge state (it can take 12 hours with no traffic to get from Montauk to Buffalo, of course it can take 4-5 hours to get from the Hamptons to NYC on a summer evening) traversing the most diverse socioeconomic population in the world, extreme urban to extreme rural, unbelievable wealth to deep poverty and not all where you think it would be, in either case. I think the Democrat's consolidation of power derives not only from the urban vs. suburban vs. rural divide but from three basic issues; immigration (legal and illegal), a welfare state (see also immigration) and fiscally irresponsible support of public unions. The Democrats could put a monkey on the ballot and they'd get elected, so it's not so much about Cuomo as it is about the party line. Oh, and I'd guess, on CSR there is a concentration of rightward leaning members from NY so you get a fairly distorted view from us NY'ers. That's my $.02....ok maybe you got $.04 there.
Click to expand...

There's a fair amount of stuff that Cuomo does that I don't agree with. But I also think he's not as bad as he's often made out to be here. I do respect that has beliefs and objectives, and sticks to them with more or less rational explanations. He's no friend to a lot of the unions. He also keeps that no talent a$$ cloud Mayor Deblasio in check.

Also, remember that actress Cynthia Nixon was actually a viable contender against Cuomo in the gubernatorial race not long ago.

It's also fair to point out that New York has a history of significant corruption at the state leadership level. Both parties have members that have been convicted of various crimes. And for some absurd reason, the state legislature is only a part-time job: it meets only for about 6 months a year.
 
A3A5220B-B9F6-472D-9493-45EF22ED5ABE.jpeg
Phasma said:
I will be back in a few minutes. I have to go take a cuomo
Click to expand...
 
Blueone said:
I don’t know my daughter here in Indy I think could care less about the fly overs...... these front line workers really go thru hell.... she has been working 3 12’s....today was her 4th.... she has been working the clean ICU....as opposed to the dirty ICU which is Wuhan virus patients... she got a call last night that one of her patients tested positive for the virus.... they don’t have enough PPE still for these nurses....so she wasn’t protected....they gave her the day off today so she could get tested.... it’s still a shitshow out there
Click to expand...

Blue, it's unconscionable that health workers don't have PPE, though I'm actually surprised to hear that is still going on. The reason I say that is that one of my daughter's is an RN at Sloan Kettering in Manhattan in their Thoracic Surgery Step down Unit. Since only emergency surgeries are being performed, they converted her unit to a COVID ICU, so she has cancer patients with C-19, quite a combination, can't get much worse from an imunocompromised perspective. (I would've thought all Cancer related surgeries were emergencies but that's another subject). She tested positive in mid-March and was on her back for almost 2 weeks. She's went back to work a few weeks ago in early April. She's working 5 12's a week, where she usually works 4 10's. Throughout this, she has told me that there was a concern early on that they would run out of PPE but they never actually did. I'm not sure why that is, maybe NYC has attracted more resources or they are better able to use their scale in procurement, but unavailability of PPE has fallen off the news cycle here quite awhile ago. Nonetheless, I can hear the stress in her voice that is different, somehow she doesn't allow her "regular" job to stress her but this does. How she does what she does in her "regular" job is something I couldn't do, and what she is doing now is beyond my comprehension. God bless her. I'm not sure I agree with you on the appreciation note though. She told me some of those on shift were able to see the flyover and some that were off gathered to watch it. They did appreciate this show of support as they do the many others, large and small, that come their way. She did say it doesn't change anything but for a brief few moments they were able to turn their attention to something else. Here's to hoping our daughters get through this in one piece mentally, emotionally and physically.
 
Blueone said:
Why does everyone hate the guy yet he is still Governor ?
Click to expand...

Because the alternatives have been even worse.
GOP has pretty much written off NYS in statewide and national elections so they don’t recruit or finance strong candidates.
Essentially, the real race is the Democrat primary for Governor, US Senator and even a lot of local races in certain sections of NY.
 
b_arrington said:
The extra plane was for photography.
Click to expand...
That makes sense, though when they flew over that trailing plane looked to be armed on the wings, definitely not a fuel pod as that is on the center line of an F/A-18.
 
b_arrington said:
There's a fair amount of stuff that Cuomo does that I don't agree with. But I also think he's not as bad as he's often made out to be here. I do respect that has beliefs and objectives, and sticks to them with more or less rational explanations. He's no friend to a lot of the unions. He also keeps that no talent a$$ cloud Mayor Deblasio in check.

Also, remember that actress Cynthia Nixon was actually a viable contender against Cuomo in the gubernatorial race not long ago.

It's also fair to point out that New York has a history of significant corruption at the state leadership level. Both parties have members that have been convicted of various crimes. And for some absurd reason, the state legislature is only a part-time job: it meets only for about 6 months a year.
Click to expand...

Not only have leaders from both parties been convicted of corruption up in Albany, but just to illustrate how bad the choices really are, both the previous County Executive and previous Town Supervisor in the County and Town I live in were indicted and convicted of corruption in recent years. Actually, I think they both took plea deals. Both were Republicans. That’s about how much effort the GOP puts in to NY.
The corruption net almost bagged Cuomo a few years back, but he disbanded the Moreland Commission when they started getting too close to him. It got to his decades long right hand man, and then was quickly put out of business.
Not a lot was made if it in a Democrat controlled state that is also home to most of the left wing media in the country.
He may not get along with DeBlasio, but if blood is thicker than water around here then party is thicker than blood.
The “Dope From Park Slope” put his wife in charge of “Thrive NY” a few years back and more than 800 billion disappeared and can’t be accounted for.
With a Democrat Governor, State Attorney General and Manhattan DA, it wasn’t investigated. You can bet they all somehow got a piece in either campaign contributions, jobs for relatives, or both.
Cuomo started this year 6.1 billion in the hole. The Feds are crazy if they make up that shortfall for him.
As a NY taxpayer, I would love to see a huge budget deficit wiped out with federal money, but the reality is that it wouldn’t help my taxes. The vultures would just figure out a way to divide it up amongst themselves, their relatives, and their cronies.
If old lady DeBlasio could make nearly a billion disappear all by herself, then 6.1 billion would be nothing up in Albany.
Give him the money the Covid cost him, even though he is probably padding the numbers, but don’t waste a penny more.
 
bmac said:
That makes sense, though when they flew over that trailing plane looked to be armed on the wings, definitely not a fuel pod as that is on the center line of an F/A-18.
Click to expand...
The Hornet wings are less aerodynamically efficient without an AIM-9 Sidewinder in place on the wingtip stations. Hornets usually have them in place. If they are painted blue, they are inert, dummies, just there for the aero...

The centerline station is usually always a fuel tank. We carried 600 gallon centerline tanks on the F-4, and I recall the F-18 is a 480 gallon centerline tank...On the F-4, that extra 4000 Lbs (600 gallons) was invaluable as we only held 13,200 Lbs internally. In full afterburner we burned fuel at 80,000 Lbs/Hr!

TMI, I know...but great memories of great flying.
 
KevinC said:
Ok, I will not complain about the burn rate on my boat again ;)

-Kevin
Click to expand...
So I don't know how fast an F-4 travels in full afterburner, I'm sure its supersonic, but even at 600 knots and that fuel burn they wouldn't be doing any better than most boats. Carter?
carterchapman said:
The Hornet wings are less aerodynamically efficient without an AIM-9 Sidewinder in place on the wingtip stations. Hornets usually have them in place. If they are painted blue, they are inert, dummies, just there for the aero...

The centerline station is usually always a fuel tank. We carried 600 gallon centerline tanks on the F-4, and I recall the F-18 is a 480 gallon centerline tank...On the F-4, that extra 4000 Lbs (600 gallons) was invaluable as we only held 13,200 Lbs internally. In full afterburner we burned fuel at 80,000 Lbs/Hr!

TMI, I know...but great memories of great flying.
Click to expand...

Carter, I see the on both the Blue Angel F/A-18's and the Thunderbird F-16's that they have dummies on the tip stations. What I thought I observed was cylinders between the centerline and wingtips, but honestly it was a very quick look. The trail plane was almost a mile behind the larger formation and I didn't hear or see it until it was past me. Some day I want a ride on one of those babies.
 
bmac said:
So I don't know how fast an F-4 travels in full afterburner, I'm sure its supersonic, but even at 600 knots and that fuel burn they wouldn't be doing any better than most boats. Carter?
Click to expand...

Depending on what was on the other wing stations, we could go 1.6 to 2.0 Mach, but not for long - 12 minutes and you barely had enough to land (not really that would only leave you with 250 gallons or so)... If we carried four AIM-7 Sparrows semi-recessed in fuselage cavities, and two AIM-9 Sidewinders under each wing on racks, 1.6 was about it. In the late 50's, the F-4 was designed as a "high speed" interceptor with the low drag Sparrow missiles only - faster speeds. I only saw Mach 2 once - you got to do it during your checkout to qualify for a special flight jacket patch!!

Always was amazed at the aerodynamics of the Concorde - 3+hours supersonic with "reheat" (British term for afterburners) ON! I always like looking at the fuel lines into our afterburner section - they were about 4-5" in diameter and extra hydraulic-powered fuel pumps would come on to supply the fuel fast enough when we "lit the burners"! So without digging out old manuals that I haven't looked at in 30+ years, I recall we held a total of 17,200 lbs (7200 Lbs in 7 fuselage tanks, 6000 lbs in the wings) with a 600 gallon centerline tank or ~2600 gallons. If I lit the burners for 12 minutes and averaged 1000 Kts, I'd travel 200 NM on 2400 gallons. IF my "math in public" is correct, .08NM Per Gal! Even our 58's at 25 Kts get .3 - or 4 times better.

The GE J79 in the F4 was a great engine, but it was a turbojet (no fan bypass duct for better efficiency). The Hornet has a mild fanjet engine - a little more efficient. I flew the lastest Navy model, the "J" - F-4J - McDonnell even added a 40 gallon tank in the vertical fin to give us 7200 Lbs in the fuselage. That would get both engines started, checkouts completed in the chocks, and on taxi out, the "Tank 7 Empty" Light would come ON on our telelight panel. After we got off the catapult (using burners), we would climb to the "tanker circle" at 12,500' overhead the ship and take on 2,500 Lbs. That barely gave us enough for a 1+40 mission off of the ship. If you encountered any delays on landing back aboard, you had to "tank" again.

I know, TMI again!
 
Never TMI Carter, I'd love to get together and shoot the breeze over cocktails one of these days. Every time I travel to Norfolk I drive down the road a bit to NAS Oceana watch the Navy jets do their thing. My dimwitted math dropped a 0 on the 10,000 lbs an hour fuel burn. Duh. Maybe I should go into politics with that kind of math where a zero here or there doesn't matter.
 
a bunch of folks on the far left are bashing the flyover saying "I wonder what that money could be used for instead of wasting it on this airshow"

unreal
 
carterchapman said:
Depending on what was on the other wing stations, we could go 1.6 to 2.0 Mach, but not for long - 12 minutes and you barely had enough to land (not really that would only leave you with 250 gallons or so)... If we carried four AIM-7 Sparrows semi-recessed in fuselage cavities, and two AIM-9 Sidewinders under each wing on racks, 1.6 was about it. In the late 50's, the F-4 was designed as a "high speed" interceptor with the low drag Sparrow missiles only - faster speeds. I only saw Mach 2 once - you got to do it during your checkout to qualify for a special flight jacket patch!!

Always was amazed at the aerodynamics of the Concorde - 3+hours supersonic with "reheat" (British term for afterburners) ON! I always like looking at the fuel lines into our afterburner section - they were about 4-5" in diameter and extra hydraulic-powered fuel pumps would come on to supply the fuel fast enough when we "lit the burners"! So without digging out old manuals that I haven't looked at in 30+ years, I recall we held a total of 17,200 lbs (7200 Lbs in 7 fuselage tanks, 6000 lbs in the wings) with a 600 gallon centerline tank or ~2600 gallons. If I lit the burners for 12 minutes and averaged 1000 Kts, I'd travel 200 NM on 2400 gallons. IF my "math in public" is correct, .08NM Per Gal! Even our 58's at 25 Kts get .3 - or 4 times better.

The GE J79 in the F4 was a great engine, but it was a turbojet (no fan bypass duct for better efficiency). The Hornet has a mild fanjet engine - a little more efficient. I flew the lastest Navy model, the "J" - F-4J - McDonnell even added a 40 gallon tank in the vertical fin to give us 7200 Lbs in the fuselage. That would get both engines started, checkouts completed in the chocks, and on taxi out, the "Tank 7 Empty" Light would come ON on our telelight panel. After we got off the catapult (using burners), we would climb to the "tanker circle" at 12,500' overhead the ship and take on 2,500 Lbs. That barely gave us enough for a 1+40 mission off of the ship. If you encountered any delays on landing back aboard, you had to "tank" again.

I know, TMI again!
Click to expand...

Nope, love it. I always thought the F-4 was an incredibly good looking plane. Maybe it was the droopy triangular configuration of the tail, or the upturned ends of the wings.

Of course, I also have always loved the F4U Corsair and it's bent-wing design. I could endlessly watch reruns of Black Sheep Squadron.

I can easily go down the internet rabbit hole of military plane Wikipedia articles.
 
bmac said:
Maybe I should go into politics with that kind of math where a zero here or there doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
As the politicians say...a zero here, a zero there..pretty soon you're talking real money!!

I'd love to sit down over a cocktail sometime!
 
b_arrington said:
Nope, love it. I always thought the F-4 was an incredibly good looking plane. Maybe it was the droopy triangular configuration of the tail, or the upturned ends of the wings.
Click to expand...

I was amazed how big it was the first time I walked up to it! And the dihedral and anhedral surfaces are great looking as well as the big intakes.
 
I saw them in Seattle a couple of years ago at the Museum of Flight. Here's the best photo I got of them buzzing the crowd:

1C3B5793.jpg


Oh, and here's a Raptor too :)

1C3B5975-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Our usual hangout spot is Sand Island, on the west end of Pensacola bay directly across from NAS Pensacola. We usually see several of the Blues practicing touch and go, occasionally a low pass, some small formations. Love the sound of the F18, like a giant sheet of paper being ripped right overhead.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,173
Messages
1,427,916
Members
61,086
Latest member
MrWebster
Back
Top