Jump to content

Talk:Blue Angels/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Critics

Does anyone know of any criticisms like that they are a waste of tax payer money or something? Mbisanz 00:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how these things are funded, but I would guess that the budget for the Angels and other demo teams comes out of the recruiting budget. It is up to the Military to decide the best way to spend their money, and if they think it helps to have these demo teams, then they probably also have facts and figures to back it up. --Measure 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think about the fact that the team is more than just the pilots (they have a sizeable support crew) and that they travel a lot, I'm sure there's plenty of criticism in the cost and maintenance of the whole thing.
I'm sure there's also those in favor of them, that say that they inspire awe and other things like that. They do do some pretty cool stuff. I don't think it's a waste of money myself. There's other things in the government that are bigger wastes of money. *Cough* Bush Administration *Cough* TotalTommyTerror 17:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I just had the oppportunity to bring this question up to a few members of the Blue Angels and Air Force Thunderbirds at the Jacksonville NAS Air Show this afternoon (Oct 29, 2006). Both teams are familiar with some criticism in recent years, but I am told that the support outweighs the naysayers by a very large margin. Since the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds F-16 and F-18 aircraft are near combat ready, their air show schedule is not that much different from the routine flights taken at bases all over the country, and indeed the world everyday as far as the finances are concerned. They remain prepared to enter combat if the need should ever arise. Also, I found out that the bills are paid from the recruiting budget and a sepatate fund

dedicated solely to the flight demo teams which is used when the recruiting budget runs dry.

This is old news by now, but in 2007, San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly tried and failed to ban the Blue Angels from performing over the city. A related article: Measure banning Blue Angels from San Francisco skies is rejected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.174.150 (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Commons images

I created commons:Blue Angels to collect the existing commons images into one place and added a link to the article while sorting commons images. Might want to use some of those in this article; also, it would be good to move the images currently used here into wiki commons. Pimlottc 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blue Angel Blue

Would anyone know which plane was the first to be painted "Blue Angel Blue" and have documentation to prove it? Just building models of one of each BA plane for my grandson and desiring accuracy. Thanks, Jack Ablon

Blue Angels Planes almost combat worthy?

I seem to remember seeing on a documentary, probably on the Discovery Channel, that the Blue Angels aircraft are flight frames near the end of their useful lives, with most of the combat avionics and systems stripped out for both weight and simplicity reasons. They are the next to last usage of a plane (The last being 'put on a stick' or some similar term with just the empty airframe used for a display piece). I could however be misremembering. Is there a source for the 'Combat ready in 72 hours' information? 207.59.200.164 17:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the FAQ section of the Blue Angels website, the F-18's that they fly are capable of being combat ready and sent back to fleet in around 72 hours. http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/index.htm

Not to mention the fact that they haven't got hard points.AMStecker 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

whats the next transition

they are currently in F-18 jets are the rumors about the F-35 true

Well, since the F-35 isn't entering service until 5-6 years from now, I'd say they're going to stay with the hornets for a while. JesseZinVT 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vought F7U Cutlass?

I noticed that the F7U Cutlass is missing from the list of aircraft used by the Blues. I'm aware that the Cutlass was only used as a solo demonstrator, never in formation flight, and that the Blues only used it briefly. Of course, I'm also aware of the overwhelmingly negative reputation of the "Gutless Cutlass" aka "Ensign Killer". However, it seems to me that it still warrants inclusion to make the article historically complete. Carguychris 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

History and Timeline edits needed, or delete them

The last Blue Angel crash that killed a pilot took place in 1999, when a pilot and crewmate were killed while practicing for air shows with the five other Blue Angels jets at a base in Georgia. If such events are to be part of the timeline, it should be complete as possible, with missing news dates of Apr 11, 1960, Feb 2, 1967, Jan 15, 1968, Jul 27, 1973, Jan 24, 1990, Oct 28, 1999. --Wnrussell 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO there should be a "Historical" time-line, and a separate time=line documenting crashes and accidents. SP 05:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on April 21st 2007 Crash

Why was change at:03:07, 22 April 2007 64.20.133.43 (Talk) (22,838 bytes) (→April 21, 2007 crash) immediately tagged vandalism and reverted? SP

If you look at the very next dif, youll see that the same editor reverted back to your edit. He most likely made a mistake the first time. - BillCJ 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I see it now, thanks! Someone else made a change from "claims the life of solo-pilot Number 6" to "claims the life of a pilot". I'm going to revert this edit, as the former is correct and contains more detail. SP

This certainly isn't the first fatal accident the Blues have had, and I'm wondering about the prominence in the article that this one is getting. If any more is added, it probably should be split off into its own article. However, it would probably be appropriate to have summary list of all the major accidents in its own section. Akradecki 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it comes down to the fact that this happened today, the last crash (1999) was pre-wikipedia. As per my note above, I think there should be a summery list remembering all of the brave pilots who gave their lives to the Blue Angels. I would be less qualified to document those events though. SP 6:00 April 22, 2007 (UTC)
While it is true that other crashes came before WP, the point is that this is a general, overview encyclopedia article. See the article on the Thunderbirds, for example, and see how the summary is handled. Just because an accident it momentarily big news in the media doesn't mean that it gets the same level of detailed coverage in an encyclopedia article. Akradecki 05:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"turned on his side to cut back" The point is multi-faceted. 1) The Plane turned more sharply than was expected or than any of the other planes did on that turn; the move looked somewhat unnatural compared to the grace and fluidity of the previous 45 min spectacle. 2) The plane banked FULLY on it's side putting the wings perpendicular to the ground, and the cockpit sideways towards the row of trees.

These facts may prove significant to both the cause of the accident AND the reason the pilot didn't eject. As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources primary and first-hand accounts may be appropriate in the case of a current-event, however the account should only make descriptive claims ( plane turned on it's side ), but should not attempt to analyze the data (hence the agreement that my follow-up paragraph was out of line). SP

This section has been split off to its own article, 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash. Please edit there. This talk section will also be copied over to there. Akradecki 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Founding Year

Just out of interest anyone got any definitive evidence on when the angels were founded because the article cites 1946 but CNN is saying it was 1951. 81.77.8.82 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • CNN is partially right and wrong. The Blue Angels was originally formed in 1946, disbanded in 1950 due to the Korean war and reformed in 1951. Read the History section of this article for details. -Fnlayson 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Accidents section

Going by the format alrady in use by the article U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds, I've added an accidents section (though I'm not sure that it really should stay in its current location, or be moved down one section...anyone?) and pulled the relevent events out of the timeline, as was suggested earlier in the Talk page. It would probably be a good idea if anyone knows actual dates for the other incidents, and some refs as well. Akradecki 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest putting the Accidents section just before the Miscellaneous section. This is how several commerical aircraft articles are layed out. -Fnlayson 02:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed: "The aircraft clipped a pine tree and debris hit homes and vehicles near Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort.[1] It seems unintentionally misleading as the crash is still under investigation and the tree and lines were probably clipped on the way down after whatever caused the accident.
    • Respectfully, please sign yout posts and get a screen name.
    • Re-added above statement. While the incident is under investigation, this is the statement from a military source and the AP about the incident BEFORE the crash. While it isn't conclusive, it can be updated as more information becomes available. — BQZip01 — talk 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Control stick placement

"The Blue Angels don't wear G-suits, because the air bladders inside them would repeatedly deflate and inflate. That would interfere with the control stick between a pilot's legs. Instead, Blue Angel pilots tense their stomach muscles and legs to prevent blood from rushing from their heads and rendering them unconscious."

I realize that this statement is substantiated, but I could have sworn that the Hornet had a sidemounted control stick like the F-16, since they are both FBW. Can anyone verify that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecale (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As I see, there are many Blue Angels external links, but not to Aerobatic Teams web site aerobaticteams.net. There have a Blue Angels page with full history and many photos from Blue's past. Can the editor of this page vote for this site, because the site was suspended for not understend for me causes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerobaticteams (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This website is not appropriate for linking; it offers little more information than is already in the article, is considered to be linkspam because it has an online store, and is poorly written. Please see WP:EL for more information on what is acceptable for linking. The same thing applies to other aerobatic team websites, so please do not re-add this link to these pages either. Thanks. BC (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

- You kill me! From this online store I made 0.48 cent for a year, so what a commercial site isn't. Many fans mail to me asking where they find quality movies and books, and I find and offer this stuff. NOT start make money. I don't know what you mean about POOR writen. Not everyone born in English language. Next time I use Shakespeare's style. So, I think that we must support each outher and don't fight who write more. Also you history end in 1986, maybe Blue's stop existing since then. An do not any photos about Angels past. Here a link in you link section that gives so much info about Blue Angels: http://www.funonthenet.in/articles/airshow-san-francisco.html, and I'm not agree that this page is more appropriate then mine. Also official Blue Angels page do not gives more info than you. Sorry if I'm boring, but smell censure. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.47.21 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Part of the article reads as follows:

This reorganization permitted the establishment of a commanding officer vice a flight leader, added support officers, and further redefined the squadron's mission emphasizing the support of recruiting efforts.

What the heck does 'vice a flight leader' mean? If i even knew what it was supposed to mean, I would make an edit myself, but i'm lost. --Measure 21:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the Blue Angels per se, but I do know that in the U.S. Navy, the command structure generally consists of a Commanding Officer who in the Blue Angels is also known as the Squadron Leader or "Boss." I think the editor was attempting to say that the team has a Commanding Officer "INSTEAD OF" (vice or versus) a flight leader. Pihanki 22:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Vice" is navy talk for "instead of." The only people I've ever known who use the expression are current and former naval officers. 165.91.64.194 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)RKH

"Vice" is used by more than "current and former naval officers". vice prep instead of; as a substitute for [from Latin, ablative of vicis change]

Expand your vocabulary vice insisting that nobody uses the word except current and former naval officers.

See also vice president, viceroy, vicar...

F/A-18E Super Hornet

Sometime in the 90s the Blue Angels transitioned to the Charlie version of the F/A-18 Hornet. The Demonstrators section is outdated. In either 2004 or 2005 they transitioned to the F/A-18E Super Hornet. --ProdigySportsman 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • They may use a couple Super Hornets, but most are Hornets. See Blue Angels FAQ. -Fnlayson 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Their FAQ page only lists A & B models. The Hornet that crashed in the April accident was an A model. :( If you have another source, please post it. -Fnlayson 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The blues do not use the F/A-18E. Note the differnce in intakes; the angular one is the defining feature for the echo form.

F/A-18A-C: http://johncarmichaels.typepad.com/carmichaels_position/images/blue_angel.JPG F/A-18E: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/vfa9l.jpg AMStecker 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Show routine section

While the "show routine" section is interesting, I can't help but note that earlier in the article it said that the weather (and venue, I suppose) depends on which routine is used – a "high" show during clear or almost-clear conditions (a couple cirrus clouds wouldn't make a difference) as opposed to a "low" or "flat" show. It's safe to assume the routine in the "Show Routine" section is a high show. How does it differ from a "low" or "flat" show? And for that matter, how about someone add a description to each maneuver? In the context of this article, what precisely is a "Fleur de Lis"? How about a "Diamond Dirty Eight"? And given that the routine is completely different in 2008 as opposed to this 2007 routine, maybe that whole section doesn't belong. Thoughts? —MicahBrwn (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A video I have says they have high, medium and low versions of their show. The lower ones leave out loops and climbs. I doubt the video would count as a reliable source though. That basic is about all I tell you. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In this section, they list "maximum" ceilings for the low and flat shows. I'm almost positive the term that's needed here is "minimum" ceilings. Note the "at least" (i.e., "minimum") qualifier for the high show. There really wouldn't be a "maximum" ceiling for ANY show routine, other than "low enough to be seen." (not logged in) Jororo05199.248.185.22 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Show schedule section added to the article

I read the Air Force Thunderbirds ariticle, and enjoyed it very much, I felt that the show schedulde listed there would be just as helpful to the average Wiki reader so I've just updated it with the 2009 show schedule from the official website. This section can continue to be updated from year to year.

NOTE: If someone has the time to do the research on this, I've put in some of the locations actual city names, when it's possible that they should be NAS bases? I'm not positive on this, but would appreciate any help here if someone doesn't mind looking that up and updating the article for everyone else. In most occasions I believe that the airshows are from air bases, being either Airforce or Navy or whatever. Thanks Zul32 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

First military aerial demonstration team?

Does anyone have a source that the Blue Angels were the first? I am currently doing research on Vice Adm. Frederick Trapnell a top naval test pilot who, in 1930 along with two others, was assigned to a newly-created team called the "Three Flying Fish" at NAS Anacostia (Flight Test Section) in DC. Flying the new Curtiss F6C-4's, they toured the country for the Navy performing aerial demonstrations.The Original Historygeek (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With no other comments immediately forthcoming, I have adjusted the article, removing the claim in question unless a citation can be found (which I am looking for- so far I have found citations for the above named team being the first).The Original Historygeek (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the "May 2011 Incident and subsequent stand-down"

Wchamilton (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I wrote the above mentioned section and I see it was removed with "ah, article uses US date (MDY) format elsewhere" as the reason, and I'm not sure what that means... can someone clarify this for me, please? I don't want to redo it and find it removed again, since I spent a fair amount of time on this today.

No, you started the section and it has not been removed. Check the article.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I see it there... sorry for jumping the gun. :) 26 May, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wchamilton (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Formal designation and hierarchy

Given that the Blue Angels acts and functions as a unit, wouldn't it stand to reason that they have some kind of official designation, like the "61st Air Public Relations Squadron" or something similar? I see no mention of anything like it in the text. I realize that they are an "Aeorbatic Exhibtion Team" (or whatever it was called, I can't see it right now), but if personnel (pilots, flight surgeons, mechanics, etc) get assigned from other units surely the must be assigned TO something other than a "team"? Or do everyone remain at their units and are simply "on loan" to the Blue Angels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.117.192 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not notable but ...

Was taken aback by this [2] - but noted the date! Springnuts (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice find! We'll be deleting that one from articles for years! - BilCat (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- A good April Fool's day thing. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pilot killed in S.C. Blue Angel crash"
  2. ^ "US Navy: Blue Angels Will Transition to Unmanned Aircraft Next Year". April 2015.
Yes it is. There is one aviation-related AprilFools joke that shows up in articles every once in a while, but I can't remember which one it was. Not to be confused with outright hoaxes such as the 797 BWB hoax that shows up every so often. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing deceased team members

The edit of 00:03, 3 June 2016‎ 68.113.16.30 completely deleted position 6 from from the list of members. Is it normal protocol? As a relative of Jeff, I came here after getting the news and was a bit shocked that he'd been erased. As of this time, the official Blue Angels site ( https://www.blueangels.navy.mil/team/officers.aspx ) still lists him as opposing solo. (And if it was another relative who removed him from the list out of grief and a desire for a form of privacy, then I apologize for writing this.)

USMC as branch

Propose removing USMC as a branch, as although they are attached, the squadron belongs to the Navy under Naval Air Training Command 65.152.162.3 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, its operated and owned by the Navy, not the Marine Corps - even though they have personnel attached. 140.32.16.51 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement with you guys. Garuda28 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Notables section

Someone needs to start a page for John Magna since he should be in the Notables section and not allowed to since he does not have a page. He was an ace during WWII and was killed in Korean War and got a Navy Cross. He was the first Blue Angel to to be killed in combat followed by Harley Hall (decorated) who died in Vietnam who could or should have a page too so he can be in the notables section. None of the Blue Angels in notables section died in war. Having these two Blue Angels in an "Accidents" section (as other "incidents") is not where they belong and rash and not commonly edited like this. In case someone wants to get smart and talk back about this, both were war-time Blue Angels and team leaders who went to war. I included both in History section where they should have been placed before, instead of an accidents section as other incidents which is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.204.19 (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Angels/Archive_1&oldid=1247530107"