st24 wrote: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!!
9arrow wrote: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!
Meep wrote:9arrow wrote: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.
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.Skyflash wrote:Can we get 'Sheik' back - he was fantastic!
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 wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests