This year's RCAF, CF-18 Demo bird

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

That said (about lack of aircraft for displays) back in the hey days of airshow the 70's and 80's a show like Abbotsford would get as an example stuff like this:

4- CF-101B Voodoos from 409 sqd. CFB COMOX.

4- CF-104A Starfighters from 410 sqd or 4-CF-5A from 419 sqd CFB Cold Lake

1- CP-107 Argus

1- CT-115 Buffalo

1- CH-113 Labrador

PLUS the Snowbirds.

At other times they maybe add a CF-100 Canuck, a CC-130 Hercules doing a LAPS demo and a JATO demo, later the CP-140 Aurora.

In the 80's the CF-18 came on line.

THAT WAS JUST THE CANADIAN MILITARY STUFF!

USAF would often bring us F-15A demos, F-16A Demos and F-4 demo, The SR-71,

of course the Thunderbirds in F-4s. later T-38's and now F-16C.

USN would bring us, F-14 Tomcats and the Blue Angels in F-4's later A-4's and now F-18's

USMC, The AV-8B Harrier.

The Brits brought us the magnificent AVRO Vulcan and the Nimrod.

Add many super civilian performers, WELL THEM WERE THE DAYS. most shows had many or a good mix of all of the above.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[Litvyak]

The one time I made it out to Abbotsford for the airshow, I remember the Russian Knights were there, a B-1, F-15, F-16, CF-18, Snowbirds, I /think/ both the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels and a bunch of other things I don't remember anymore.

The only other airshow I've been to was the USAF 50th anniversary show at Nellis, and I remember seeing just about anything in the US inventory there, plus Snowbirds and CF-18 and LOADS of other stuff old and new, though I guess that's not really an everyday sort of show... I'm thinking I might try to get out there this year, just to be around some active airplanes for a bit, if nothing else...

[phantom]

THe airshow in Kitchener, (or was it St Thomas?) last year had the demo break down. Airshow continued with the two seater that 425 squadron sent.

[chuck540z3]

The only other airshow I've been to was the USAF 50th anniversary show at Nellis, and I remember seeing just about anything in the US inventory there, plus Snowbirds and CF-18 and LOADS of other stuff old and new, though I guess that's not really an everyday sort of show... I'm thinking I might try to get out there this year, just to be around some active airplanes for a bit, if nothing else...

I've been to Nellis at least 5 times (pic above is Nellis), mostly because if you want to see military fighters, there's no better place to see them than where they call home, including the Thunderbirds. With current cut-backs to US air show performers and reduced schedules, I think that places like Nellis will be the only air shows worth going to for kerosene burning nuts like me. Nellis often has unscheduled acts come out of nowhere, like F-16 and F-15 Aggressors and the F-22, because they are parked there already and getting them up in the air isn't a big deal at the last minute. So far, the Navy has always supplied an F-18 of some kind as well.

There will still be lots of air shows throughout North America, but with bi-planes doing a loop the loop over and over again with maybe one fighter jet demo, it's going to be a pretty lame season I'm afraid- at least for fighter jet fans.

Edited April 13, 2012 by chuck540z3

[RiderFan]

I remember the airshows at Moose Jaw in the early and mid 80s were fantastic. The last real airshow I attended was Abbotsford a couple of years ago and I felt it really didn't hold a candle to the Moose Jaw shows I went to as a younger man.

Oh to have a digital camera back then...

[Scooby]

Naw, Ronald McDonald was the FIRST demo bird back in 1990.

That one was actually called the McHappy Plane.

The team actually had McDonald Hats for the season.

[Scooby]

The need to replace the CF-18 in an orderly time frame is not out of a result of a demo bird shortening its show due to a mechanical.

There are CF guys/techs who visit here and I bet they'd defend the air worthiness of all our aircraft especially the CF-18's, but $hit happens and even at air shows. The forces will not jeopardize lives just to keep a specific air frame flying.

Chuck isn't too far off, the demo routine is very hard on the jets. The combined G loading and airframe hours are called flea hours. Flea (which I know I am spelling wrong) hours can actually be lowered by resting (not flying) the jet. Just like you need to rest your body after hard work.

What can I say about our jets? They are old and tired. The airframes were originally lifed for 2500 hours. We are now pushing 6000 hours on many of them. We did take some of the non-modified jets out of storage for a short period of time, most of these were categorized as grey jets. They could only pull less than 3 g's and were only good for Q duty. Basically all they could do was take off and land. Nothing extreme was permitted.

We were using them as a stop gap measure until a replacment was obtained but I now think we have limited people who are still qualified (ground crew and air) to fly and maintain them. I did hear they were going to start the training courses again but it was too complicated.

The last two demo jets (perhaps three) were ECP 583 and up modified jets. I don't recall if the previous one was.

Nothing Chuck said was insulting. It is time for a new jet. The jets the Americans fly (same models) are babies compared to ours.

[martin_sam_2000]

Looks nice but the snow flames make it look a little ....well feminine

I just found this now..but each snowflake is different, and each one represents a different aspect of Northern Canada. Here is a link to each flake and what it stands for. There is an issue with one of the alter flakes..the larger version is repeated for two, so we cant see the detail for one of them.

Link

I like this scheme even more now!!!

Sean

[RedIndian]

and the MacHappy jet leading a four-ship diamond above Cold Lake:

[Litvyak]

So when are we getting decals?

I'd love to build this.

[RiderFan]

I've been trying to put this and the other demo's into my catalogue for a few months now. It's getting access to the artwork that is a challenge though.

thanks

David

[Litvyak]

Best of luck, then! I'd get a set in whatever scale you'd make.

[Emvar]

I've been trying to put this and the other demo's into my catalogue for a few months now. It's getting access to the artwork that is a challenge though.

thanks

David

I would like to see this in your line. I'm in for one.

Emil

[phantom]

Are you talking the new scheme ( would love the decals ) or McHappy? If McHappy, Arrow graphics did it around 20 years ago. Have a sheet in the stash on the build pile.

[RiderFan]

I'd like to do both the 2010 and 2012 schemes.

[ALF18]

I do not know what the RCAF protocol is if/when the CF-18 Demo has issues. At Abbotsford the forces have always sent multiple CF-18's. If the demo bird can't fly I am not sure if they'd put one of the ones on display into a performance. Maybe the CF guys here may know more what the protocol is? When ever Abbotsford has had a ground/air tac demo they usually put up TWO CF-18's into the air to do mock battle passes.

We used to always send two to an airshow. The spare jet was not usually painted up fancy, but it was specially configured. For the demo and the spare, they would lighten it up and clean up the drag by doing this (and more): removing RWR, jammers (weight); removing missile launchers from fuselage stations; and ensuring there were no pylons, not even on the centreline. I once flew a spare all the way from Bagotville to Edmonton, in formation with the demo pilot that year (John Graham from 425 Squadron). The demo jet and the spare (711 and 716) were both freshly painted in normal camo colours, but had full-colour Canadian flags on the tails - both were identical. John would switch between aircraft from show to show sometimes. It was kind of ironic seeing Cold Lake off our right wings as we descended toward Namao, but that was how important it was to have a properly configured aircraft for the show.

For several years, they would use a normally-painted but cleaned up (configuration wise) aircraft as a spare to the colourful demo jet. They would tend to have the spare aircraft hold static display if it wasn't needed, or sometimes be parked on the active airshow flight line next to the demo jet. Towing one out of static display and inspecting it to make sure it hadn't "eaten" any FOD-like substances during the static was not a quick and easy task, especially during a show where timings are important.

Nowadays, I think they don't bring a spare. Budgets are tight, and a spare aircraft is an expense we can't afford. The difference between RCAF and USAF or USN demo team budgets can be seen when comparing the Snowbirds to the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds. The American teams deploy with a transport aircraft full of people and parts; the Snowbirds show up with only their aircraft plus a coordinator, whose jet serves as a spare. The Snowbirds each carry a tech, who is often multi-qualified and able to work miracles to keep the aircraft flying on long swings with only the meagre parts supply that fits into the tiny storage spaces in the Tutor. I've flown Big 2 Tutors (standard silver training scheme) to various places so the Snowbirds could use them during their display, when one of theirs was hard down and waiting for parts (which I would bring in my aircraft, but the techs didn't have time to fix prior to the show).

Flying demos can be a lot of fun, but it's exhausting and rough on the family life.

Chuck isn't too far off, the demo routine is very hard on the jets. The combined G loading and airframe hours are called flea hours. Flea (which I know I am spelling wrong) hours can actually be lowered by resting (not flying) the jet. Just like you need to rest your body after hard work.

What can I say about our jets? They are old and tired. The airframes were originally lifed for 2500 hours. We are now pushing 6000 hours on many of them. We did take some of the non-modified jets out of storage for a short period of time, most of these were categorized as grey jets. They could only pull less than 3 g's and were only good for Q duty. Basically all they could do was take off and land. Nothing extreme was permitted.

Canada was the first international F/A-18 customer, and ours were among the oldest off the assembly line. What Scooby pronounced right, but spelled incorrectly, was FLEI (Fatigue Life Expenditure Index), which is measured by a system of strain gauges installed all over the airframe. Each flight, the maintenance recording system measures the strain (bending or stretching) that the airframe sensors report, and a calculation is made of the fraction of total airframe life that is expended on that flight. Given that the F/A-18's structure is different from older jets, it is not possible to detect cracks soon enough to prevent catastrophic failure of a part, with a normal non-destructive testing cycle. In other words, it is possible for an inspection to be normal, then for a crack to appear and grow over a few flights to the point where it causes a major component of the aircraft to fail, well before the next inspection. That's why the FLEI system is used. At first, the aircraft was supposed to have a life of 1.000 FLEI. A safety factor of 1/3 was imposed, so at FLEI = 0.666, the aircraft was to be parked (life expended).

Hard usage of the aircraft could cause the FLEI to arrive at 0.666 well below the 6,000 hrs that we hoped it would occur at; that's why the 2,500 hr figure became typical for some aircraft.

We took some measures to lower fatigue expenditure on the aircraft, and managed to reduce the rate of fatigue accumulation. These measures included things like:

-flying with two tanks instead of a centreline;

-waiting until lower fuel weights before maneuvering hard;

-reducing the number of landing gear cycles, and doing fewer traffic patterns and touch and goes (i.e. not touching down, just doing an overshoot at very low altitude);

-changing some training mission profiles to reduce heavy maneuvering when not essential.

The upgrades to the aircraft often included the replacement of a major fuselage section (called the centre barrel), which had the effect of resetting the fatigue life to near zero on the critical places like wing to fuselage attachment points and landing gear support bulkheads.

Airshow flying is one of the most FLEI-intensive types of mission profile. That's why the aircraft are often rotated between show birds and not show birds from year to year, and on the squadrons they sometimes pick specific airframes to fly based on the missions and their typical fatigue indices. The Hornet is a great tactical fighter; its avionics are very good, even in today's battlespace, but the fatigue of the airframes is what will kill our fleet.

ALF

[Scooby]

Canada was the first international F/A-18 customer, and ours were among the oldest off the assembly line. What Scooby pronounced right, but spelled incorrectly, was FLEI (Fatigue Life Expenditure Index), which is measured by a system of strain gauges installed all over the airframe.

The Hornet is a great tactical fighter; its avionics are very good, even in today's battlespace, but the fatigue of the airframes is what will kill our fleet.

ALF

Thanks Alf, I knew I was spelling FLEI wrong. I looked through all my books to find the correct spelling. I worked on those strain gauges; ironically the same strain gauges are used in my new line of work in medical research. They are used to measure blood pressure inside a person’s arteries. All too often, what was developed for the military is adapted to the medical field.

702 FLEI'd out three times before it was finally retired. I hated that jet, we stripped and re-built it three times. When we finally fixed it up with freash paint to put on the stick two things happened. First someone pried open the canopy the night before we put it on the stick to steal the pilots helmet. It couldn't have been a tech as we knew how to open the canopy manually without damaging the canopy and surrounding area. Once that was fixed up and we put it on the stick the bolts snapped and the jet crashed to the ground and broke in two. I hated that jet! It was nothing but a headache.

I was surprised to learn from a rep from McDonnell Douglas that our taxing to and from the chocks in Cold Lake was actually harder on the airframe than a carrier landing is on the airframe. The jet is designed to take a hook, but the taxing causes the jet to twist and bend.

I was talking to one of my ex-mates in Cold Lake just yesterday; he said a daily two bell is the norm for the day and that the jets won't even take the hook anymore. They are worried the jet will fall apart if they do.

I'd argue that we even need something like the Aussie's did as an interim replacement until the F-35 are up to speed.