Best F-16 display?

[Macc]

Thought it would be interesting to see everyone's favourite F-16 and the outcome.

Chris

[F575]

Enjoyed them all to be honest, but the Turkish display was the pick of the bunch for me.

[st24]

Dutch show is a poor one this year TBH. He takes off and does two consecutive loops with a roll at the top, and the ending - a high alpha with 360 straight into landing is very odd. Come on KLu, you wrote the book on F-16 displays, get back in the groove!!

[Seamus]

Turkish just pipped the Belgian for me. It had the novelty factor, having not seen it before, some different manoeuvres, including a mental take off and a very attractive paint job. The Belgian has the most flowing display, but the Turks just nicked it.

Dutch displays always used to be the best for me, but they've dropped down the pecking order a little over the last couple of years. The Danish seemed a little distant too, sadly- I thoroughly enjoyed that display at Yeovilton last year.

[Meep]

Belgians, by a fair distance.

[DeanW]

Thought the Belgian F16 was the best display by far. The Turk Solo was easily the 2nd best, but the Belgian kept the aircraft so tight with a lot more of the display within the airfield boundary.

[triple_ace]

Unfortunately I didn't get to see the Turkish display but did see it practice on Thursday.

I voted for the Belgians. The F-16s are quality though.

[Danny]

I saw the Turkish rehearsal twice and thought it was an excellent display.

[henk99]

Dutch show is a poor one this year TBH. He takes off and does two consecutive loops with a roll at the top, and the ending - a high alpha with 360 straight into landing is very odd. Come on KLu, you wrote the book on F-16 displays, get back in the groove!!

I'm dutch myself and should maybe support my fellow dutchman, but I agree completely. Actually, this is not the first year I've had this thought. For 2 years or so, I already like the belgian display more. This year I liked the Turkish best. It seemed more 'playful' to me. I don't know how else to explain it, but it didn't look like the tightly rehearsed display the others had. It made me smile..

[A40-BP]

Belgian F-16 for me. He seemed to be alot closer to the crowd for most of the display than the others. But the livery on SoloTurk is striking, and the climbout on take off by the Dutch F-16 was very impressive! The Danish one however, i found quite tame, considering how it was praised by reviews from shows last year. SoloTurk seemed to high for my liking, but painted like that who cares!

7

[G-CVIX]

Turkish was great but Mitch in the Belgian F-16 was my personal favourite. Both of them out shone the Dutch this year.

[9arrow]

Anyone lucky enough to see the 100 years of Turkish Air Force show at Izmir will know that, if allowed to perform his rehearsed show, Soloturk would have wiped the board at RIAT. The whole routine is designed to include flares, and more flares, and the show at Fairford merely showed what was missing from his show. I will never understand the flares rule and it spoils the display of many a pilot if he is not allowed to use them.

Scrap the rule!

[Wes_Howes]

Definitely the Belgian for me. The Dutch display was a slight improvement over last year but the Turkish display, with that take-off was a great second place. Sadly the Danish came in last as it was far too high and distant

[Meep]

Anyone lucky enough to see the 100 years of Turkish Air Force show at Izmir will know that, if allowed to perform his rehearsed show, Soloturk would have wiped the board at RIAT. The whole routine is designed to include flares, and more flares, and the show at Fairford merely showed what was missing from his show. I will never understand the flares rule and it spoils the display of many a pilot if he is not allowed to use them.

Scrap the rule!

The rules are clear though, and the other teams make do with flares ok.

[j-o-h-n]

I was there on Sunday and for me personally the Belgian display was easily the best.
A modern fighter routine should show mainly power and agility and the Belgian did so with a lot of burner turns and rolls.
He also stayed close to the airfield parameters and public making it noisy and spectacular.
Just like the Rafale the Belgian Falcon kept his speed on the high side most of the time which creates a dynamic and energetic routine turning quickly back to the display line.
The Dutch routine only used burner the first 2 minutes and then the display falls a sleep
At least it should be the other way around building up to an impressive finale.
The Danish had more of the same problem it only a showed a nice steep take off and for the rest it was very tame and far from public making some passes mostly without burner.
And then the Turkish airforce... Not bad for a first timer as they are not used to have a display team as far as i know.
But with an F16c you should have possibilities to impress with the bigger engine.
I think it is also a matter of safety concerns for each country validating the routine and maybe the fact if the pilot is in it's first year of displaying his aircraft.
Watched airshows more then 25 years i remember the best Falcon displays in the 80's with tailcodes HR and TJ but i am still glad they are on the display circuit with the other countries for a long time.(sorry for long message i am new here )

[Skyflash]

Turk for me; lovely colour scheme and a really tight, well-flown routine.

Anyone who has seen Mitch's Belgian 16 display a lot would have to conclude that he was a bit tame at RIAT compared with some of his routines elsewhere. Still good, but nowhere near as good as he was at Zeltweg for example.

I also have to agree about the Dutch display, just not doing it for me this season at all. Can we get 'Sheik' back - he was fantastic!

[wamovements]

Turkish display for me, altough the routine flown in the UK is far less spectaculair than the one flown at Izmir-Cigli. If Izmir wasn't that spectaculair, it probably wouldn't end up as first. Belgian second, they keep imroving their display every year, and Dutch, well since the Sheik stopped displaying the dutch display is rather boring and the current display pilot is not a good Air Force promoter liek Sheik was (mentioning his name would be too much credits ).

[patrouille2001]

Anyone lucky enough to see the 100 years of Turkish Air Force show at Izmir will know that, if allowed to perform his rehearsed show, Soloturk would have wiped the board at RIAT. The whole routine is designed to include flares, and more flares, and the show at Fairford merely showed what was missing from his show. I will never understand the flares rule and it spoils the display of many a pilot if he is not allowed to use them.

Scrap the rule!

The rules are clear though, and the other teams make do with flares ok.

Book him for Yeovilton next year then

[aviodromefriend]

Can we get 'Sheik' back - he was fantastic!

A year ago at a lecture Sheik said he was happy having finished all commitments still standing from his display days (although he was still working at an Extra 300 duo act at that time, which was the last time I heard about that). I also doubt if the RNLAF will be too happy with reinstating a team that has one of the coaches to spend a long time in jail for spying for Russia and/or Belarus.

[JBartlett]

It has to be the Danish for me as I only went Saturday and as a fan of the F16 I was gutted not to see the other two display But hopefully the Belgian display is good at eastbourne

James

[BigRedDogATL]

For me I judge the flying display by how well I was able to get good photographs of the plane. On this basis I have to rank the F-16 displays at the Turkish Team first. This is mainly because of the number of practice sessions they flew on Thursday and Friday and how their actual routine allowed for lot more opportunities to get good photos of the top side of the jet.

If a flying routine gives me nothing but views of the bottom of the plane, such as the Eurofighter routine did, or if it is done at too high an altitude to get good shots from the ground, such as the Danish F-16 did, then I don't rate the routine as well.

In second place I would put the Beligian F-16, with the Dutch F-16 and extremely close third. Last place goes to the Danish F-16 for reasons stated above.

This was my first time ever seeing these four demo jets in person. I had seen the Dutch presentation a couple of years ago at Nellis AFB, but they used a standard grey jet they keep in the US for training. So my ranking of the paint jobs is based upon first impression, photogenic quality, and uniqueness. First place has to go to the Dutch F-16 because of the bright nature of the paint job and the ease to photograph it. An extremely close second goes to the Belgian F-16. The nature of their paint job makes it easy to use a slightly out of focus photo because paint job itself looks out of focus, even when sitting still on the ground. The Turkish paint job was actually one of the harder ones to photograph correctly. They used a two-tone black to have an Eagle on the top of the wings and it would be easy to miss without correct exposure and lighting. The Danish paint scheme comes in last because the special paint was restricted to just the tail. If they had done the whole plane, then they would have scored higher in my book.

[phreakf4]

For me I judge the flying display by how well I was able to get good photographs of the plane. On this basis I have to rank the F-16 displays at the Turkish Team first. This is mainly because of the number of practice sessions they flew on Thursday and Friday and how their actual routine allowed for lot more opportunities to get good photos of the top side of the jet.

If a flying routine gives me nothing but views of the bottom of the plane, such as the Eurofighter routine did, or if it is done at too high an altitude to get good shots from the ground, such as the Danish F-16 did, then I don't rate the routine as well.

In second place I would put the Beligian F-16, with the Dutch F-16 and extremely close third. Last place goes to the Danish F-16 for reasons stated above.

This was my first time ever seeing these four demo jets in person. I had seen the Dutch presentation a couple of years ago at Nellis AFB, but they used a standard grey jet they keep in the US for training. So my ranking of the paint jobs is based upon first impression, photogenic quality, and uniqueness. First place has to go to the Dutch F-16 because of the bright nature of the paint job and the ease to photograph it. An extremely close second goes to the Belgian F-16. The nature of their paint job makes it easy to use a slightly out of focus photo because paint job itself looks out of focus, even when sitting still on the ground. The Turkish paint job was actually one of the harder ones to photograph correctly. They used a two-tone black to have an Eagle on the top of the wings and it would be easy to miss without correct exposure and lighting. The Danish paint scheme comes in last because the special paint was restricted to just the tail. If they had done the whole plane, then they would have scored higher in my book.

That one statement shows what is wrong with the attitudes of many of the "aviation enthusiasts" who post on this and other fora.

Are you for real?

Never mind the skill of the pilot, don't care how well the abilities and performance of the aircraft is demonstrated, do not consider the sheer ground-shaking, ear-shattering awesome power of an afterburning jet, or the evocative grace of a well-flown warbird, just give me "topside shots" and I'm happy?

How did such "enthusiasts" exist before the availability of the Digital SLR, which has sold in huge numbers based on the (totally incorrect) belief that digital SLR photography is "easier" than film SLR photography and which as a result is now "standard equipment" for hordes of "enthusiasts" who heretofore could not be bothered with all the "hassle" of photography.

[BigRedDogATL]

That one statement shows what is wrong with the attitudes of many of the "aviation enthusiasts" who post on this and other fora.

Are you for real?

Never mind the skill of the pilot, don't care how well the abilities and performance of the aircraft is demonstrated, do not consider the sheer ground-shaking, ear-shattering awesome power of an afterburning jet, or the evocative grace of a well-flown warbird, just give me "topside shots" and I'm happy?

How did such "enthusiasts" exist before the availability of the Digital SLR, which has sold in huge numbers based on the (totally incorrect) belief that digital SLR photography is "easier" than film SLR photography and which as a result is now "standard equipment" for hordes of "enthusiasts" who heretofore could not be bothered with all the "hassle" of photography.

Maybe I should have added the fact that I was at RIAT 2011 to cover the event for a couple of U.S. based aviation publications. My primary task was to get photographs to be published. I was also at RIAT on Thursday through Monday. So once I had acceptible photos, I did stop and enjoy the performances. But frankly when you have seen as many F-16 demos as I have, there isn't much that can be done with those planes at a public air show that I haven't already seen. The difference here was the paint jobs on the planes and the use of wing tip smoke generators. And until the Thunderbirds give me a ride along like the Blue Angels did, my favorite fighter has to be the F/A-18 Hornet.