F-11 Blue Angels 1/48 ???

Is this some ancient Lindberg kit? Saw this in the Historic Aviation catalog...Curious plane that would be a good addition to the Blue
Angels kits I try to find...
Did they use a different color blue back then? this looks a lot more toy like than today's darker blue.
thx - Craig
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=LND70542
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Monogram used to make a BA F-11F kit, but that ain't it. Yeah, it don't look right as far as "Blue Angel Blue" goes.
FWIW - an old F-4 dude at the plant in STL once told me that the first BA F-4s were just painted with blue Rustoleum from the local hardware store when they were first converted.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, that is indeed a ancient 1/48th scale Lindberg kit that I must have at least four times as a kid. The only difference between that and their stock F-11 Tiger was this one has something that looks like a probe and drogue refueling probe on the nose rather than the pitot tube and lacks the underwing rockets, it was also molded in blue rather that the stock Tiger's white.
Pat
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 10, 7:59 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

That thing ( toy ? ) is so ' odd ' looking. Wrong shapes and sizes for an F-11 Tiger. Landing gear is way out of scale. Wrong shape of the vertical tail. Take a look for yourself at some Blue Angel Tiger photo's. Keep in mind this is the ' long nose ' Tiger varient. Come to think of it the F-11 has always been ' odd ' looking to me. Look at the way the wing tips fold down.
http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/F11/Stickm4_6.htm
Chris
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CCBlack wrote:

Looks like they clipped the sides of the elevator on the way up to the flight deck. ;-) Here's a classic old Monogram kit:
http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/kits/images/Aviation/mono-blueangels.JPG
Pat
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I will never understand why the Blues didn't adopt the F-8 Crusader for their mount. I think it would have been an awesome show bird. It would have looked cool in Blue Angel livery too. These are some reasons that I have come up with :
- The Blues were loyal to Grumman - They had a bad experience with Vought and the Cutlass - The Crusader may not have handled as well as the Tiger at low altitude. - Crusaders were needed in the fleet and not available - F-8 might have been more of a maintenance headache
However :
- The F-11 had a short service life in the fleet ( the Crusader was better ) - The F-8 went on to become the " Mig Master " in Vietnam ( Last of the Gunfighters ) - The Thunderbirds were using the latest and greatest at the time ( F-100 ) - The Thunderbirds even gave the F-105 a try for a bit.
Hmmm.
Chris
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CCBlack wrote:

<snip>
...all you ever have to do is talk to anyone that ever actually flew F-8s, and you'd understand. I ran into a former F-8 jock when I was at NAS Kingville, and he described "surviving F-8s" vice "flying" them. He also had time in F-4s an F-14s.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ahh ... the Blue's Navy jet jocks were cream of the crop. Highly skilled high time aviators. But yeah you are right, the F-8 was a handfull. Skip Umstead who became a team leader in the F-4 in the early 70's had a couple of combat tours in Vietnam in the F-8. Later he was killed in an accident with the Blue's in an F-4. Go figure.
http://www.umstead.org/marvinskip.html
Chris
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CCBlack wrote:

The BA F-4s were my all-time fav show jets. Nothing I've seen since them comes close.
They actually considered moving to T-45s for a bit while I was working Fleet intro on that platform. Obviously didn't happen, though.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CCBlack wrote:

That's putting it mildly - they hated that plane, like the rest of the Navy pilots did also. It didn't even make this desk model set: http://www.modelairplanefactory.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=4

I think the small size of the Tiger also argued in its favor, as small aircraft tend to be more maneuverable and look like they are going faster at air shows. I saw the Budweiser BD-5J flying at a air show, and although it was only doing around 250 MPH, you were expecting a sonic boom when it went by due to its diminutive size...you were also expecting it to be wearing a two-tone green splinter scheme and swastikas, because it sure looked like something the Luftwaffe would have deployed in 1946, possibly the "Kleinevolksjager". The Tiger was sort of the last of the breed of fairly straight-forward postwar jets before all the complex avionics started to hit, with the Crusader and Demon being the transition to the new generation. (Speaking of the Demon, this is one odd way to fold a aircraft's wings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F3H_F11F_CVA-19_1960.jpg sort of a throwback to Grumman WW II designs. You don't want to leave it unshackled to the deck in high winds, or it might be blown overboard.) I was really amazed to find out the Super Tiger actually cracked Mach 2, because the design didn't look right aerodynamically for those speeds. I read that one of the Tiger's shortcoming was fairly short range. That a problem for fleet service, but not for air shows. Besides which they would have a ton of spares for it due to the short operational life.

Well, it would have been loud, that's for sure. I suspect they like their F/A-18s a lot better than their old F-4s. The Skyhawk probably worked quite well for them; again, a small maneuverable aircraft with fairly low maintenance needs. Although people love building models of it, a Blue Angels F-14 would have been a disaster area from the maintenance point of view. From the above website: "...apparently the Skyhawk was not the first choice or even the second choice of the Blue Angels team, however in 1974 they had first requested for F-14 and A-7 but both requests were denied. The F/A-18A Hornet is the present fleet in the Blue Angels team; the Hornet first flew in 1978. The Hornet F/A-18 was perfect for demonstration team work and allowed the Angels to include new maneuvers in their routine. The F/A-18 Hornet has the longest service record with the Blue Angels team and one of the best safety records." The A-7 would have probably done quite well also. I suspect they will be flying some variant of the F/A-18 for many years to come. Now the Thunderbirds in F-117s...the Air Force could say they'd already flown the air show, and the crowd just hadn't seen them. ;-)
Pat
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

And here's why:
http://www.naval.com.br/dossie/jatos_naes/cutlass.jpg
The low powered engines and high AOA on landing meant the pilot couldn't see where he was going on final approach nor wave off if things weren't going as planned, due to too much drag...and that meant it really could be his final approach in every sense of the word. There's another view of that Cutlass crash on this YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmXD8HlwMuk
You can see large stills of it here: http://www.usshancockcv19.com/gallery7/faulkner.htm Funny, the F7U's engines turned out a lot of flame, if not power:
http://www.vusn.org/trawing/images/cutlass.jpg
Looks like it had rockets back there.
Pat
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Tiger was too underpowered. Even Blue Angel pilots admit that the F11 excelled in the dive. They had to climb back up to altitude after maneuvers to get up enough speed to do the next one. That J-65 in afterburner only put out about the same amount of thrust as an F-8's J-57 dry thrust.
That's where the F-8 in my opinion would have excelled. If the Blue's had adopted the early models ( F-8 A,B,C or D ) before the design gained too much weight ( F-8E ) a stripped down F-8 with fuel burned down ... and in afterburner would have had close to a one-to-one thrust weight ratio.
Yeah I bet the Blues would have loved to get their hands on the ' Super-Tigers ' but the Tiger design was a loser.
Interesting that Vought had the upper hand in beating out Grumman with a better aircraft. It was due to the J-57. Vought was a close partner with United who built the J-57.
I can't believe the Blue's actually considered using the A-7 Corsair. Boy talk about underpowered. Yeah ... sure ... would have been neat ... but what a pig.
Chris
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CCBlack wrote:

Let's face it, the Canadair Tutor isn't exactly a rocketship, but the Snowbirds do some very nice flying in them, although I imagine they could have gone with F-101s if they had wanted to. Now the Blue Angels in Vigilantes... ;-)
Pat
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.modelairplanefactory.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=4

From what Tomcat drives have told me the F-14 would make a terrible choice for a BA show jet because it's tricky to hold station in formation because of the swing wing just for admin type flying - you end up using the stab for your sight picture. Big, heavy, expensive, a maintenance nightmare on top of that, yeah.
Personally, I haven't really been impressed by the BA or T-Birds shows since the F-4 days. Glad I got the chances to see both of those shows.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

The BA scored a one-up on the T-Birds here in Jamestown on two successive year's airshows. The first year, the BA brought their F-4s in and gave a great show. The next year, the T-Birds showed up, but had to fly their F-4s in from Fargo, 100 miles away, because Jamestown's runways were "too short" for F-4s to operate from. Score one for the Navy. It really was something to see those F-4s roaring all over the place. ;-)
Pat
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

how long have they used F-18's ? What bird will replace the Hornet?
Craig
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe the first season for the Blues using the F-18 was around 1986. Currently it's a record for both the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels for length of use with current aircraft. I think the T-birds switched to the F-16 in 1983. Previously I think the record with the Blue's was the F-11. ( 1957 - 1969 ). For the Thunderbirds it was the F-100. ( 1956 - 1969 with a brief period of using the F-105 before switching back to the F-100 )
So now it's around 24 years for the T-birds ( F-16 ) and 21 years for the Blues ( F-18 ). Definitely some of the best years of demonstration teams for both services IMHO.
What's next and when will they switch ? Good question.
F-35 ?
Chris
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CCBlack wrote:

If they build it...and the majority of the US buy is for the USAF. The Marines want it, but the Navy don't...something about that single engine...
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

The Israelis want it also; Lockheed is trying to make the F-35 the new F-16 as far as overseas sales go; and it had better work, or there are going to be a lot of PO'd military services worldwide as many are counting on it to replace existing and deployed aircraft types. The Royal Navy in particular is counting on the V/STOL version working as advertised to arm their new Queen Elizabeth class carriers, and if it doesn't do what its supposed to, it will be the Skybolt missile fiasco all over again.
Pat
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

Yup - but the problem is the long lead time to get the aircraft to production. I was at an industry gathering a couple years back where a speaker commented on just that...nations can't afford strategically to have such long lead times to bring hardware to the Fleet and then expect it to be in step with developing countermeasures.
Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Grippen (and even the venerable F-16 and/or F-15E) are here NOW, and now is when the need is. If dollars are spent to meet today's need, they may not be there for tomorrow's airplane...particularly in the international market. That's what I'm skeptical about.
That, and that it's an "X" development and not a "Y"..."X" programs are far easier to cancel...
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.