Fairford Departures Part 1 With ATC 2016 - AIRSHOW WORLD 

Thanks, That's Very Kind

Airshow World I have to agree, so much varied content in just 13 minutes :) fantastic stuff

Best aircraft ever - in my opinion

phantom0621 along with F15s

@@phantom0621 lol ppl

Thanks

Thanks, I am working on part 2 as I write, stay tunned

Thanks

Yes my fav Aircraft. I am working on a phantom special, hope to have that on soon.

Can't wait to see that - awesome!

Great planes those F4s! I loved hearing that Phantom rumble overhead at my house near Cherry Point MCAS!

Its civilian operated.

Yes Phantoms, beautiful aircraft

Japan, Iran and Turkey are, too. I think the US Navy were the last outfit flying F-4s in display formation (the "Blue Angels"). But none of the aircraft I've seen so far (about 5:18) seem to have been display birds but the F-16 painted up like modern art. Which seemed to be a Wild Weasel version, going by the antenna pod on the vertical stabilizer. I'd rather see aircraft equipped for service, anyway. The Croatian Mi-8 (marked "KFOR") was a nice example.

Lots more coming soon

Absolutely - the air arms fail to recognise that the old stuff is MORE important to display because it wont be around for much longer.

Unfortunately, there is no greek or turkish F-4 Display Teams.:-(

thanks, I don't know why some use afterburners and some not.

The reason has to do with thrust vs. weight. Most of the latest fighters & interceptors being made do not need A'B's for take off, especially the few (F-22 Raptor, etc.) that are capable of supercruising (reaching and attaining supersonic speeds without afterburner use). For example, the original Grumman F-14A Tomcat needed afterburners for takeoff, even with catapult use. On the other hand, the "D" model did not, as it had greatly uprated engines putting out several thousand pounds worth of thrust extra, without going into afterburner. The other reason, of course, has to do with the simple equation of fuel consumption. As a general rule of thumb, going into full afterburner ("zone 5") causes most fighter/interceptor aircraft engines to burn fuel at approximately 4 times the METO rate ("maximum except takeoff" - i.e., full throttle but not yet into burner selection). As an example, an F-4 Phantom (US model with G.E. J-79 turbojets), taking off with full afterburner selected, and if it stays in full burner until fuel exhaustion, will only stay airborne for approximately 6 to 8 minutes before its engines fail due to fuel exhaustion! So if the runway selected for takeoff provides enough distance to achieve flying speed without compromising safety and allowing for no afterburner use, most pilots will utilize that feature unless on a "scramble" type exercise wherein getting off the ground as fast as possible is paramount. Dunno if that answers your question of not, but most of the time, if the runway allows for non-burner use for takeoff, not using the burners saves a tremendous amount of fuel.

Thanks Paraord1410, the fuel saving thing did cross my mind but I'd discounted it because I didn't thnik afterburners would produce such a significant increase in fuel burning but you're way more knowledgable than me on the subject. One of the reasons I discounted it was I saw an RAF Typhoon do the same thing, taking off with no AB's & I couldn't think why a modern UK based fighter would be so marginal on fuel? It could have been Germany based perhaps, I'm not sure on the current RAF deployment, but you're probably right with saying fuel saving. Thanks for the info & the reply.

Thanks

Hungarian Gripen C.

I think it had a problem with its landing gear but I landed safely