| Poll |
| Good idea for 'Historical' Squadron? |
| Yes, cool! |
|
71% |
[ 5 ] |
| Too expensive, not enough return. |
|
28% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 7 |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
f100pw229
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2004 - 07:05 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 06, 2004 - 07:48 AM
Posts: 53
Status: Offline
|
I have always wished for a Historical, if you will, squadron in the USAF. They could serve a similar purpose as the Thunderbirds.
The squadron I propose would maintain and fly several important historical planes of the AF, i.e. B-17, B-58, P-80, etc. What do you all think? |
_________________ Happy landings -- Jeff - AIM <jeff16falcn>
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 21, 2013 - 8:19 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2004 - 02:44 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147
|
F-100, F-4 ( Robin Olds Vietnam jet ), F-104, A-1 Skyraider, F-106, F-86, F-51 ( in korean war garb ),Tall tail B-52, ( take the just retired NASA # 008 B model and make it look like a stainless steel SAC warrior F model (that crew starts the show driving up in vehicles and running out to the aircraft as if it was on alert , ), And a striped, maintenance friendly, F-111 ( LN or UH ). These jets make an awesome highspeed low pass if you have never seen one. AC-47, and a transport of some kind from the Berlin Airlift. |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
habu2
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2004 - 05:23 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2811
Status: Offline
|
| All of these 'historical' squadron are backed by either private or commercial funding - not USAF. The requlatory hoops they must jump through rival the financial hurdles as well. |
_________________ Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Phoenix
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2004 - 09:48 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Sep 11, 2003 - 12:25 PM
Posts: 155
Status: Offline
|
| I dunno, there's already sveral groups that do all sorts of demos and stuff like that, I don't see why the AF should spend money that could go into pilot training, or equiping their squadrons, when the job is already being done by others. If anything, some non-monetary grants could be given, or something similar, but otherwise, I dunno, the AF needs all the money it can get as it is, a 'Historical' squadron, despite making quite an impression on those who know anything about vintage jets, would be a burden the AF could do without. My 2 cts. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
habu2
|
Posted: Mar 11, 2004 - 11:45 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2811
Status: Offline
|
I vote for the Thunderbirds going back to F-4s, or maybe F-100s, or...  |
_________________ Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
|
|
|
|
 |
|
TC
|
Posted: Mar 12, 2004 - 02:43 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 4006
Status: Offline
|
The Commemorative (Artists Formerly Known as Confederate) Air Force will never be a real "Commemorative" AF til they get a Thud. Yes yes, I know, no more flying F-105s, but shoot, if they can restore some of these other planes, I'd love to see them restore a Thud, and maybe a Voodoo and a 106. Now, THAT would be a helluva show start, to have the Thud sitting at EOR, and light off that Water Injection Afterburner, take off, and then come back over show center, about 50 feet off the deck at Ludicrous Speed. It could then demonstrate how it would bomb an NVA target.
It's been 20 years since an F-105 flew. I miss the Thud. Great Jet. But yes, too much money to operate a squadron of this nature. This is the reason for CAF and YAF, and some of the other civilian groups. There is a group that does a mock Vietnam battle, with an A-1, C-7 Caribou, a Huey, and I think a Cobra. Pretty cool stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
f100pw229
|
Posted: Mar 12, 2004 - 06:10 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 06, 2004 - 07:48 AM
Posts: 53
Status: Offline
|
^That's the stuff I'm talkin about. Yeah, there are some private groups, but an official AF squadron would have the ability to use any aircraft they pleased, like you will never see a private group fly a B-58!! That's why.
And not just jets, either Phoenix,  |
_________________ Happy landings -- Jeff - AIM <jeff16falcn>
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Phoenix
|
Posted: Mar 12, 2004 - 08:03 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Sep 11, 2003 - 12:25 PM
Posts: 155
Status: Offline
|
Hey, I never said it wouldn't be nice, but I think it would betoo much of a strain on USAF assets. Maybe if the USAF decided to let those groups have their pick from old planes no longer in service and provide any assistance might be needed, then it would amount to something. But given all the financial hoops that air forces today have to jump through, I think one demo team is enough for the USAF and a Historical squadron wouldn't be as much of a PR success as the Thunderbirds, as far as Joe Citizen is concerned.
Let's face it, despite the special feeling that those vintage planes have, the Viper puts on a better aerobatic airshow. And given that there are quite a few people out there who can't tell the difference between a Thud and Phantom... you get my drift.
Juz my 2 cts. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
JR007
|
Posted: Mar 13, 2004 - 06:27 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 03:46 PM
Posts: 539
Status: Offline
|
Man did you guys hit on an interesting topic. My quote for many years has been, “its hell having your own Air Force”. Come out to an airshow with us and you can watch the consumables get tossed into the wind. You’ve got a/c that there may not be another part for it when it breaks, so you manufacture it. You get 16 landings out of your main tires, and they cost $500 a piece. Some of the seals don’t exist, so you have to manufacture them. The list goes on…
There is no way the USAF would operate aircraft under those circumstances.
Man would I love to see other stuff flying too. But a lot of times you get dumb asses with a lot of money telling you “No, I don’t want you to arrive on station with more than 600 lbs of fuel on board so we can save money”. And that was in an aircraft that would burn it all in 12 minutes in primary. Then you’ve got people that have a little money and are doing everything possible to safely operate their ex-military jets. And trust me, I’ve been in both groups, but you can guess where I am now… The only thing we have going for us is that we are EXPERIMENTAL.
But don’t fret dudes, there are currently T-33s, F-86s, F-100s, F-5s, T-38s, T-2, Gnats, Vampires, Provosts, Hunters, TS-11, S-211s, Casas, Saetas, L-29s, L-39s, L-59s, Fougas, Mig 15, 17, 21s, an F-4, and F-104s currently performing airshows in the US. |
_________________ Burning debris never reversed on anyone…
JR
|
|
|
|
 |
|
f100pw229
|
Posted: Mar 17, 2004 - 03:37 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 06, 2004 - 07:48 AM
Posts: 53
Status: Offline
|
^two good posts. I don't expect the Historical Squadron to do many acrobatics, the Viper is of course best suited for that ...  |
_________________ Happy landings -- Jeff - AIM <jeff16falcn>
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SwedgeII
|
Posted: Apr 07, 2004 - 09:09 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Feb 06, 2004 - 01:37 PM
Posts: 338
Status: Offline
|
| Cool Idea, but to do it right they should do one of each of the frontline types. I would love to see and hear a B-36 fly. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|