I’m having an argument. So who’s better?
I’ve only seen the Blue Angels but I don’t see why either would be better than the other. Both would have the pick of the best pilots in their respective services.
Aren’t the Thunderbirds Canadian? That pretty much settles it right there. Blue Angels all the way.
I think the bulk of my co-arguers (I dunno, it could be a word…) argument is A) the Blue Angels have Fat Albert and B) they’re not the Air Force. Or maybe it’s not so much that the Blue Angels are not the Air Force but that they have Marine Corp pilots, which is important to him because he’s a Marine. You know, ooh-rah and all that.
Fat Albert is really cool (though they stopped the JATO demo, so I’m not sure how great it is anymore) and I like them both pretty much equally, but I’m on the side of the T-birds for this argument, who have a natural advantage anyway just because I’ve seen more of them and seen them more recently.
(The Thunderbirds are USAF, Bob. 
)
The Blue Angels are from the U.S. Navy (with one Marine Corps pilot as well), and the Thunderbirds are from the U.S. Air Force.
The Canadian Armed Forces have a demonstration squadron called the Snowbirds. They’re good; the planes aren’t as high performance as the front-line American fighters, but they fly more planes in formation.
The Red Arrows, of course!
Beaten to it. Since I have no opinion on the OP I’ll chuck in a random Red Arrows story. Last saw them do a display at Bournemouth (south coast of England) watching from the cliffs overlooking the sea. The upshot being that some of the display was flown lower than our viewpoint. Quite something to see guys flying below you - at 300kts - fifty feet off the sea - upside-down.
I saw the Snowbirds at an airshow a few years ago, followed by the Thunderbirds. Snowbirds did a lot of simple formation passes, not much in the way of aerobatics - and the formations weren’t the rock-solid, lock-step patterns that the Thunderbirds demonstrated. Granted, it’s harder to hold an echelon formation with 9 planes instead of 6, but if it’s hard to do it well, then they ought to switch to 6 planes or do other formations.
As noted, the Snowbirds aren’t using the latest, greatest hardware either; they fly very old trainer aircraft, as opposed to the Thunderbirds’ F-16 aircraft.
I’ve only ever seen the Snowbirds from directly below, and it’s never all that interesting. It’s more interesting that we give them airspace clearance over our land so that all the Canadians can see the show from the proper perspective on their side of the water.
I gotta go with the Blue Angels. In my mind, Naval Aviators have the edge over USAF pilots because the Navy guys have to pull off night carrier landings, which to my mind makes them the best in the world.
So they were flying inverted and below you meaning you saw the undersides of the aircraft? You could see the same thing if they flew right side up over your heads! Just sayin’.
I voted Blue Angels. For some reason, they seem to get better press here in San Diego than the Thunderbirds do.
I suppose, but without the neck strain 
Good point! We’ve got that Grand Canyon thing going. Maybe I can drum up support for an air show below the rim!
Most display teams use pretty basic jet trainers. They typically have better low speed handling characteristics.
The Thunderbirds get my completely unbiased vote. The fact that I have flown in F-16s, including with one of the pilots that did a tour with the Thunderbirds, doesn’t influence my opinion in any way. Well…maybe just a little.
Nice for the pilots, I guess, but it makes a less exciting show for the spectators. I thought the whole point was to wow the crowd and woo impressionable recruits; seems to me the best way to do that is to show the best pilots performing in the most capable machines.
As for low speed maneuvers, it’s hard to beat the Blue Angles doing their high-alpha pass.
Well, it would be different if the Blue Angels (or whoever) were flying F-22s, but AFAIK you can’t do much in an F-16 that you can’t also do in a Hawk. Well, except go supersonic.
Blue Angels. I have nearly identical photos I’ve taken of both display teams in flight, and in such a direct comparison, the Angels clearly fly tighter formations than the 'birds.
Of course, that may have something to do with what I’m pretty sure I’ve read somewhere: that there have been considerably more accidents among the Navy display pilots than those of the Air Force.
Put me down for liking Fat Albert as well. Luckily, I got to see one of the last JATO-assisted launches last autumn.
I’m from a Navy family, and spent many a day at (then-)NAS Miramar. So of course I prefer the Blue Angels. I’ve watched them in F-4s, A-4s, and F/A-18s. (I’ve watched the Thunderbirds in F-4s, T-38s, and F-16s). It’s too bad they only fly ‘current-issue’ aircraft. F-18s are awesome, but the little A-4 Skyhawk is a much better plane for an airshow because of its size.