Mitch Cronin Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 ...then what? I'd like to see Canada maintain an aerobatic team... But I do think the Tutors are getting tired. Do they need to be flying trainer's? Why not F18's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 The Hawk II used as the NATO trainer in Moose Jaw would be even better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 26, 2005 Author Share Posted August 26, 2005 ...Sure, that could work. Is it that the trainers perform better at low speed that makes them more desireable for a display team? ... or is it expense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAS Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 It workes for the RAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skirt Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 The problem is our Hawks are NOT owned by DND. They are part of the NFTC program. http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp Bombardier "owns" the A/C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictues Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 I'm sure Bombardier would lend the Snowbirds the aircraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsgas Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Let's get something that the Canadian taxpayers can afford - DHC 1 Chipmunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 The question that remains unanswered is "why do we need an aerobatic team?" Would not the money be better spent on basic equip. needs??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 28, 2005 Author Share Posted August 28, 2005 Rattler... Why does a pretty lady need a beautiful dress? Why does a nice car need shiney wheels? Why does a country need a flag? Why does a high school need a mascot? ... I think that's the last question that needs asking. I don't see it as being about need. It's about pride, and rallying that pride... demonstrating the best of what we can do... putting on a show. ...and it's for all of us who absolutely love to see that kind of poetry in motion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 If you are having trouble justifying the cost then think of it as money from the tourism advert budget. The Snowbirds likely bring more recognition of Canada than a poster with a Moose on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Rattler... Why does a pretty lady need a beautiful dress? Why does a nice car need shiney wheels? Why does a country need a flag? Why does a high school need a mascot? ... I think that's the last question that needs asking. I don't see it as being about need. It's about pride, and rallying that pride... demonstrating the best of what we can do... putting on a show. ...and it's for all of us who absolutely love to see that kind of poetry in motion Mitch, my pride in being a Canadian has absolutely nothing to do with us having a team of precision flyers. It has everything to do with what it means to be Canadian and how we are viewed by the rest of the world. IMO the presence or absence of a precision flying group is not part of the equation. I suspect most folks in the rest of the world do not know or care about the existance of the "Snowbirds" except those folks in the US who welcome the arrival of Canadian "Snowbirds" every fall ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Maybe they could use some of those surplus '37s lying around. Now THAT, my friends, would be impressive Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 How about the Dash 8's ? Then you could see the low and overs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 29, 2005 Author Share Posted August 29, 2005 Mitch, my pride in being a Canadian has absolutely nothing to do with us having a team of precision flyers. It has everything to do with what it means to be Canadian and how we are viewed by the rest of the world. IMO the presence or absence of a precision flying group is not part of the equation. Hi Rattler... I agree with that. The Snowbirds are not the essential source of the pride ... or the object of the national pride... but they can serve as a focal point for that feeling, and for those of us who do feel it, they can be an awesome sight. That's why I mentioned the flag... Seeing them do their routines, with such beautiful precision, all over the flippin' sky, is - in a way - like seeing a monstrous Canadian flag covering half the sky flying at 10,000 ft! It's pure shmultz in that context, but it's patriotism, and it feels good, and I think it's good for Canadians and Canada. Not to mention ...the airplanes and pilots flying them would exist regardless of whether or not they flew as a demonstration team... The few bucks extra cost for the added training and flying is, overall, well worth it, imo. There's no shortage of other targets for complaint about tax revenue waste, including several that would be much more difficult to find an equal argument for benefit.... I say we buy them some better airplanes. Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Hi Rattler... I agree with that. The Snowbirds are not the essential source of the pride ... or the object of the national pride... but they can serve as a focal point for that feeling, and for those of us who do feel it, they can be an awesome sight. That's why I mentioned the flag... Seeing them do their routines, with such beautiful precision, all over the flippin' sky, is - in a way - like seeing a monstrous Canadian flag covering half the sky flying at 10,000 ft! It's pure shmultz in that context, but it's patriotism, and it feels good, and I think it's good for Canadians and Canada. Not to mention ...the airplanes and pilots flying them would exist regardless of whether or not they flew as a demonstration team... The few bucks extra cost for the added training and flying is, overall, well worth it, imo. There's no shortage of other targets for complaint about tax revenue waste, including several that would be much more difficult to find an equal argument for benefit.... I say we buy them some better airplanes. Cheers, Mitch As they always say Mitch, different strokes for different folks. For me the Snowbirds are nice but def. not necessary. A look at their 2005 sked shows that they are / have performed only in the US and Canada, perhaps due to limited funds. I suspect our other troops do much more for our image worldwide. Anyway, I believe the $$$s spent on the Snowbirds would be better used on other items for the Canadian forces. Unlike others, and I don't include you in that group, I believe that every $$$$ spent to support our Armed Forces (lets put armed back into their title) is well spent. Now if we could only get the $$$$ amount up to a decent percentage of our GDP, I would be very happy. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 ...while you're at it, you might as well get rid of the Musical Ride and those ridiculous red outfits the RCMP wear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 The Snowbirds are more thanjust a demonstration team. They are considered ambassadors for the Canadian Armed Forces. The work they do on the ground is more important than the flying they do in the air. I suspect that the snowbirds are responsible for more recruitment in the CAF than any other means. Besides that they are still one of the best demonstration teams in existance, even with the outdated equipment. They are in hight demand on the airshow circuit each and every year for that reason. Give 'em nicer machines and keep 'em flyin' My $.02 B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 If you have to ask "why do we need them", I'm sorry but you just wouldn't understand and the energy required to make you sort of understand would be exhausting. As for new aircraft...no need! The Tutor is at about 50-60% of useful life on average and with the huge number in storage, the Snowbirds could operate for decades. If they do replace then be careful what you ask for. Look at the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, what makes their shows so different from ours? If you can answer this and truly understand maneuverability then you may just agree that the Tutor is the right aircraft for the job. What about the Hawk you may ask? It would be about as good as a formation of T-38's or F-5's. It would dramatically change the entire show and leave it less spectacular and on the verge of being boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kilo Mike Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 "What about the Hawk you may ask? It would be about as good as a formation of T-38's or F-5's. It would dramatically change the entire show and leave it less spectacular and on the verge of being boring" Have you ever seen the RAF's Red Arrows? I'd have to say that their show is 'anything' but boring. The Tutor is a fine a/c , but a hawk team would be awesome... IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Have you ever seen the RAF's Red Arrows? I'd have to say that their show is 'anything' but boring. The Tutor is a fine a/c , but a hawk team would be awesome... IMO I'm just saying that the maneuverability of the Tutor combined with the relatively slow speed of the sequences provides a centre stage show throughout the performance. As you introduce faster aircraft the wait-time between passes increases. Yes I have seen the Red Arrows and their show is not as compacted towards centre stage as the Snowbirds. I think a 9-plane PC-9 team would be more entertaining than with the Hawk. IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 The Tutor is boring! The team has always done some great flying demo's but, from an audience perspective teams such as Blue Angels & the T-Birds beat the snowbirds all to heck on stage simply because of the power that comes with their birds. With all due respect to the Snow Birds; I recall an east coast F-5 squadron (Bluenose?) that put on a show just prior to the Snow Birds back around 1980 in London. The non demo trained team beat the SB's hands down simply because of the ac. IMO our old old Hornets are the replacement answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 IMO our old old Hornets are the replacement answer. I guess I'll just have to bring a book to read between passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 The other advantage of the Hawk is that it is a two seat aircraft. I understand that the snowbirds have always taken their maintenance staff with them, which reduces overall cost and increases the team bond. The Hawk would do the same thing. Then maybe we could pick up the old Tutors on e-bay at a bargain price... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amraam Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 DEFCON I disagree...I've watched all three teams perform and I think you get a much better show with the Snowbirds...they are able to bring more of their show 'front and centre', take less time getting set for the next formation, and you're able to see all of the performance...if you want to see the power and speed of the F-18 and F-16, watch their flight demos...but for true formation demonstration flying, the Snowbirds are hands down the winners in my books! As for a replacement...I would assume either the Hawk or a CF-18 fleet would be the cheapest, and make the most sense...I'd be curious to see the economics of it...I'd expect that 'day-to-day' costs between the Tudors and the Hawks would be pretty similar...whether Bombardier would 'give' or 'loan' them some jets is a bit of a stretch I expect, though the government has certainly given Bombardier enough 'freebie' money in the past to pay for a few jets for our national demonstration team! 'Snowbirds, presented by Bombardier' maybe? Might make more sense then them sponsoring the scoring tower at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway! amraam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky High Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 The other advantage of the Hawk is that it is a two seat aircraft. I understand that the snowbirds have always taken their maintenance staff with them, which reduces overall cost and increases the team bond. The Hawk would do the same thing. Then maybe we could pick up the old Tutors on e-bay at a bargain price... They would make a great commuter aircraft but dont' have a great range without a tank. One of the things our pilots liked about them was the side by side seating. Made it a lot easier to communicate and see what each other is doing. You are right Starman, there is a designated maintenance crew that travels with the team to all the shows. The majority of the maintenance personnel are left back home in Moose Jaw though. The Tutors are a fairly easy and cheap to maintain aircraft. Combine that with the fact that they are easy to fly, readily available and fairly maneouverable and they make a good choice for an aerobatics team. An F18 team would cost considerably more to maintain and run. The maintenance on some of our older 18's ir rather time consuming and expensive. I can vouch for the fact that they spend a lot more time in the shop than any Tutor I have ever worked on, and are usually harder to fix in comparison The larger more powerful jets such as F-18 and F-5, are much mroe impressive when they are used as demo flights showing off the capabilities of the aircraft. Seeing an F-18 doing a catwalk down the flight line is guaranteed to bring the crowd to it's feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.