New Plane for the Snowbirds [OC]

Posted by VaunBob@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 61 comments

I hope this is allowed! I took some time in Photoshop last night to see how the current Snowbirds livery would look on the new CT-157. While I am disappointed they will not be moving to another jet platform, I am very happy that the team will be continuing and has a future mapped out. I believe the PC-21 is a very capable platform, but the Snowbirds have such an iconic paintjob so I hope that it is retained with the switch. Would you like to see a new livery or should the Snowbirds retain the existing one as shown above?

[-]

Medical_Breakfast795@reddit

Saw a bit on the news this morning from a rep of the blue birds stating that many of their maneuvers simply are possible with a propeller driven plane.

I won't be surprised when 2030 rolls around and the blue birds are just gone.

Expensive or not it's kind of super lame to but a group that's been flying jets since their inception in what is essentially antiquated tech.

[-]

Rallymodeller@reddit

Snowbirds, not "blue birds".

Not sure what maneuvers the CT-157 can't do that the Tutor could, The Tutor was underpowered, short-legged and should have been ditched in 2000 when we retired the rest of the fleet.

[-]

HotCompany8499@reddit

If the PC21 is anything like the Harvard II, it won't be able to do sustained inverted flight, so any upside down formation flying wont happen anymore.

Couple years ago a Harvard II went down when the plane was inverted too long, engine got starved of oil and shredded itself and the pilots had to eject

[-]

same_same1@reddit

The RAAF Roulettes do a mirror pass with #5 inverted and #6 flying formation off it. I’ve flown the PC21 for 1000+ hours, and was formation aeros qualified on it. It will make a perfectly capable formation aerobatics display aircraft. Yes the noise isn’t there but neither is the RCAF budget.

[-]

HotCompany8499@reddit

Nice. It’ll be interesting to see how it comes together then. Thanks for the correction.

[-]

quietflyr@reddit

It is not like the Harvard II. It has sustained inverted capability.

https://youtu.be/UkcX50Hi9-I?si=vQcDPj5ijX8I3j3w

[-]

HotCompany8499@reddit

Ah okay, TIL. Good correction.

[-]

rhineauto@reddit

What was the news clip on?

Having seen the Snowbirds countless time, their maneuvers are nothing extreme. They fly a lot of formations, and have two solos that break off and do their own things.

[-]

Rallymodeller@reddit

The Tutor is, among other things, really underpowered. The Snowbirds' entire schtick is conserving maneuvering energy, so transitioning into the CT-157 will be a lateral move in every way but one: the Siskin II has better acceleration 'cause it's a turboprop.

[-]

YYZYYC@reddit

No one will care. It’s a prop plane

[-]

MrProsser@reddit

We should make fun of such fool, not bend to them. Though it sounds like you are one of them.

[-]

YYZYYC@reddit

The snowbirds alumni say you are wrong

[-]

Stinky_cat111@reddit

i’m very excited that the snowbird chose this plane imo. the cf114 needed to be retired and this is the perfect replacement. it’s just as fast and manoeuvrable and sounds BAD ASS. i’m excited to hear the 1400hp turboprop hauling ass whenever the next airshow is

[-]

McHappyMan@reddit

Does going jet to turboprop kinda mean a downgrade? Would there be limitations or improvements because of this change?

[-]

Rallymodeller@reddit

I'm guessing the naysayers on this thread have never seen a PC-21 fly, or have heard of the RAAF's Roulette demo team -- which uses PC-21s.

[-]

YYZYYC@reddit

It doesn’t matter. Prop will never be as cool as a jet and yes that’s superficial …but that’s the nature of what this is.

[-]

MrProsser@reddit

Good thing the point isn't being cool. The Tudors were never really cool. They were trainers. You tiny, limited needs to expand.

[-]

YYZYYC@reddit

It is not. A prop will always be perceived as lame and inferior by the general public and perception is what matters. The snowbirds alumni themselves are saying it’s a horrible choice

[-]

practicalcabinet@reddit

I've seen the Swiss PC-7 team perform a couple of times, which is an even slower aircraft, and they are great to watch.

[-]

granny_inside@reddit

Ахахахаха сиськин

[-]

CommunicationSlow129@reddit

Disappointed government is not replacing the Tudors with JETS

[-]

MrProsser@reddit

Meh, there are some great demonstration teams with similar aircraft. The Swiss PC-7 Team, for instance. That is in many ways much more in line with the type of flying the Tudors did, than something like the the Blue Angels. People are way too hung up on the type of propulsion.

[-]

shrimpshrub75@reddit

Why can’t they just keep the Tutor flying?

[-]

MrProsser@reddit

It is ancient. I love the Snowbirds, but this is a long time coming.

[-]

YYZYYC@reddit

Because it’s over half a century old and has killed people

[-]

SubjectiveAssertive@reddit

The livery is as much a part of an aerobatics team as the aircraft and displays are so they'll almost certainly keep it

[-]

lordtema@reddit

The only American option would in any case be the T-7 built in collab with Boeing and Saab, which has not yet reached IOE and is currently to my understanding not being sold anyhow.

Not a ton of jet trainers out there at the moment.

[-]

MGreymanN@reddit

The T-50 and M-346 are also good options for aerobatic teams.

[-]

lordtema@reddit

Yep, but they are going to have to buy one of the three anyhow at some point because right now Canada does not have the capability to train pilots completely in house given that they retired the Hawk in 2024.

[-]

Impressive-Row143@reddit

Most of what was taught on the Hawk will be covered off by the CT-157, the rest by advanced simulation before joining an OTU

[-]

flightist@reddit

Totally, but not very many given it’s only the fighter stream that needs a jet trainer.

[-]

lordtema@reddit

Yeah! Idk how many they would need but probably 15-20 or something like that.

[-]

VaunBob@reddit (OP)

The Snowbirds run 11 planes so probably closer to 20. Ideally you’d be able to swap them out with the current fleet which they’ll be able to do with the PC-21.

[-]

lordtema@reddit

I was strictly talking about how many would be needed to do fighter training! Snowbirds would probably need like 13 or something along those lines! I know the Red Arrows only have a very small handful (i think it`s only two or so) spares.

[-]

VaunBob@reddit (OP)

My bad! I think you’re close on your estimation then. I know the RCAF order 19 PC-21s for Moose Jaw so 15-20 feels spot on.

[-]

Arctic_Chilean@reddit

T-50 opens up the door for buying the FA-50. And IMO, a split F-35/FA-50 makes a bit more sense than an F-35/Gripen NG split fleet.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

aviation-ModTeam@reddit

This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.

This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.

[-]

_FROOT_LOOPS_@reddit

God, what I would give to see a T38 demo team flying airshows

[-]

lordtema@reddit

Lol! Patrouille Suisse is as close as you are getting with their F-5Es

[-]

WesternBlueRanger@reddit

There's also a second major reason for the pick of the PC-21; the aircraft will also be the primary advanced flight trainer for the RCAF. Future pilots who will join the Snowbirds will be familiar with the aircraft in the past, and it keep the pool of pilots who want to do a stint with the Snowbirds wide open to the entire RCAF, rather than just the fighter jet squadrons.

The current Snowbirds crew mix are mostly flight instructors, transport, rotary wing and maritime patrol pilots. Only one pilot came from the CF-18, whilst another is trained as test pilot.

[-]

viccityguy2k@reddit

Not to mention the maintenance and line support commonality

[-]

YYJ_Obs@reddit

Interestingly, the trainer fleet support will be fully private/contracted. Presumably the SnowBirds won't have maintenance contracted, so in a way it'll still be a small subfleet for RCAF.

[-]

Rallymodeller@reddit

Unlike the situation with the Hawks/Harvards, the RCAF will actually own the Siskins (and the Astras/G120TPs, Junos/H135s and Expeditors/King Airs), it's just the maintenance and training mission that is being contracted out.

[-]

VaunBob@reddit (OP)

I hope so!

[-]

SG14_96@reddit

A jet option would be more expensive. But also more thrilling and interesting. Since that is the point of an aerobatics team, to increase recruitment and to gather support from the public. It makes sense to go with a T50 or a Gripen

[-]

greatlakesailors@reddit

PC-21 can pull +8 / -4 g, has a 200°/s roll rate, and climbs at 4000 fpm. Speed range is 81 to 370 knots. That's plenty of envelope for exciting manoeuvres. They'll still bring out RCAF jets one at a time for demos, just like they do with the Hornet now. The impressive thing about the team is the teamwork, not the absolute performance envelope of the planes – and let's be honest, most of the cool high-alpha stuff that 5th gen jets can do is all solo work, not things you can do in formation.

[-]

rhineauto@reddit

Neither of those options make sense for the RCAF

[-]

Gullible_Goose@reddit

I mean my favourite non-Snowbirds team were the Canadian Harvards (RIP). They were able to put on a spectacular and thrilling show in piston aircraft with a lot less capability than the incoming PC-21s!

[-]

110percent_canadian@reddit

Cost effectiveness and over do need for a new airframe that don't have stupid long factory que times kinda limits what airframes DND picks.

Same thing goes with the Grob 120 tp for fact. In my opinion the Pilatus pc-7 or a newer production t-6 Texan II would have been a better fit, especially maintenance wise since they are extremely similar to the already existing and eventually retiring NFTC Harvard. The reason why I highly suspect they didn't is because of factory production ques and the other is an American product.

[-]

Rallymodeller@reddit

The PC-21/CT-157 is essentially a next-generation PC-9, on which the T-6 Texan (and Harvard II) is based. It is more powerful, more agile, and more compatible training-wise with current and future standards than the CT-156s it is replacing.

The Grob 120TP (CT-102B Astra II) is replacing our existing piston CT-102A Astras/Grob 120As. There is no reason to have a piston-powered ab-initio trainer in a modern air force that has no other piston aircraft.

[-]

VaunBob@reddit (OP)

Thanks, i love you username!

[-]

DashBee22@reddit

Obligatory Fuck Messier

[-]

VaunBob@reddit (OP)

What about Aquilini?

[-]

DashBee22@reddit

That goes without saying

[-]

CanucksHateMessier@reddit

Thanks and I really mean it lol.