You are actually largely correct! That was a Boeing C-40 Clipper - the military version of the 737.

I hope someone posts a video

From my seats on west side of stadium I could never find the plane due to the overhang of the stadium until it started its turn after it had passes.

I was standing on the concourse in the opening of the horseshoe end and could watch it approach from the south. It would have been a lot more effective if the pilot hadn't been 30-45 seconds late flying over. I could also see it after it flew over out the opening at the north end and it banked right fairly soon after it passed over. My initial thought was the same as others; it looked like a 737 or Airbus 320 from underneath.

buckbear said:

---

You are actually largely correct! That was a Boeing C-40 Clipper - the military version of the 737.

---

Or could also be a T-43 from Laxkland AFB in San Antonio.

Raytheon actually did some work on those in the late 90's/ early 00's. I actually witnessed the delivery of one in 2000 where that was the first and last time I ever saw a 737 perform a barrell roll.

Those T-43's were refurbished 737-200's. I didn't see Saturday's flyover, however, because I didn't make it down to my seats yet.

I don't know why the military does the flyover's. An F-16, which is relatively cheap, costs $23k/hour to operate. A B-52 costs $55k to operate. The C-40 is really cheap at $7-$8k per hour.

I saw a video of a B-2 flying over the stadium at UCal Berkley shot from a drone. It was incredible. A B-2 cost $133k per hour to operate. Have a friend who's son flys C-5's out of Dover and did a flyover recently. That cost $101k per hour.

Multiply those kinds of numbers by the number of flyovers including formations with multiple aircraft and the taxpayer dollars start to become significant.

The justification is that they have to fly the aircraft for training purposes (pilots need hours), so why not fly over stadiums and get some residual recruiting value. People want to see the planes and I like the flyover's. Makes me proud for my country. It was a visceral experience to see the B-52,~ 300k lbs of USAF Global Strike Command heavy metal over the stadium.

I question the expenditure (and a lot of much bigger boondoggles, like the littoral combat ships) for an organization (the DoD) that has not passed an audit in 7 years.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

I don't know why the military does the flyover's. An F-16, which is relatively cheap, costs $23k/hour to operate. A B-52 costs $55k to operate. The C-40 is really cheap at $7-$8k per hour.

I saw a video of a B-2 flying over the stadium at UCal Berkley shot from a drone. It was incredible. A B-2 cost $133k per hour to operate. Have a friend who's son flys C-5's out of Dover and did a flyover recently. That cost $101k per hour.

Multiply those kinds of numbers by the number of flyovers including formations with multiple aircraft and the taxpayer dollars start to become significant.

The justification is that they have to fly the aircraft for training purposes (pilots need hours), so why not fly over stadiums and get some residual recruiting value. People want to see the planes and I like the flyover's. Makes me proud for my country. It was a visceral experience to see the B-52,~ 300k lbs of USAF Global Strike Command heavy metal over the stadium.

I question the expenditure (and a lot of much bigger boondoggles, like the littoral combat ships) for an organization (the DoD) that has not passed an audit in 7 years.

---

This is a good point. I like seeing them also, and they provide recruiting value. I only think they work if they provide meaningful training hours.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

I don't know why the military does the flyover's. An F-16, which is relatively cheap, costs $23k/hour to operate. A B-52 costs $55k to operate. The C-40 is really cheap at $7-$8k per hour.

I saw a video of a B-2 flying over the stadium at UCal Berkley shot from a drone. It was incredible. A B-2 cost $133k per hour to operate. Have a friend who's son flys C-5's out of Dover and did a flyover recently. That cost $101k per hour.

Multiply those kinds of numbers by the number of flyovers including formations with multiple aircraft and the taxpayer dollars start to become significant.

The justification is that they have to fly the aircraft for training purposes (pilots need hours), so why not fly over stadiums and get some residual recruiting value. People want to see the planes and I like the flyover's. Makes me proud for my country. It was a visceral experience to see the B-52,~ 300k lbs of USAF Global Strike Command heavy metal over the stadium.

I question the expenditure (and a lot of much bigger boondoggles, like the littoral combat ships) for an organization (the DoD) that has not passed an audit in 7 years.

---

You answered your question: the pilots must fly anyway, so why not over stadiums. It then becomes a relatively simple logistics issue. The added benefit is for recruiting: everyone lives to see the planes & some youngsters at the game or watching on TV might be inspired to sign up. It's relatively cheap advertising if the TV people cooperate & show it.

It's also good public relations in general for the Air Force (or other branch) because everyone enjoys it. It's a dramatic way for the military to leave a positive impression with everyone there and maybe many more at home.

The sole and exclusive reason for military flyovers is to tick off the Scrooge McBears amongst us. That's it.