Blue's Clues

Blue's Clues is an American interactive educational children's television series, created by Angela C. Santomero, Todd Kessler, and Traci Paige Johnson, that premiered on Nickelodeon's Nick Jr. block on September 8, 1996, and concluded its run on August 6, 2006, with a total of 6 seasons and 143 episodes. The original host of the show was Steve Burns, who left in 2002 and was replaced by Donovan Patton (as “Joe”) for the rest of the series. The show follows an animated blue-spotted dog named Blue as she leaves a trail of clues/paw prints for the host and the viewers to figure out her plans for the day.

The producers and creators combined concepts from child development and early-childhood education with innovative animation and production techniques that helped their viewers learn, using research conducted thirty years since the debut of Sesame Street in the U.S. Unlike earlier preschool shows, Blue's Clues presented material in a narrative format instead of a magazine format, used repetition to reinforce its curriculum, structured every episode the same way, and revolutionized the genre by inviting their viewers' involvement.

Research was part of the creative and decision-making process in the production of the show, and was integrated into all aspects and stages of the creative process. Blue's Clues was the first cutout animation series for preschoolers in the United States and resembles a storybook in its use of primary colors and its simple construction paper shapes of familiar objects with varied colors and textures. Its home-based setting is familiar to American children but has a look unlike previous children's TV shows.

Upon debuting, Blue's Clues became the highest-rated show for preschoolers on American commercial television and was critical to Nickelodeon's growth. It has been syndicated in 120 countries and translated into 15 languages. Regional versions of the show featuring local hosts have been produced in other countries. By 2002, Blue's Clues had received several awards for excellence in children's programming, educational software, and licensing, and had been nominated for nine Emmy Awards.

A live production of Blue's Clues, which used many of the production innovations developed by the show's creators, toured the U.S. starting in 1999. As of 2002, over 2 million people had attended over 1,000 performances. A spin-off called Blue's Room premiered in 2004. A revival of the series titled Blue's Clues & You! premiered on Nickelodeon on November 11, 2019. The show's extensive use of research in its development and production process inspired several research studies that have provided evidence for its effectiveness as a learning tool.

## History

### Background

By 1990, parents, teachers, and media experts had been criticizing "the lack of quality fare for children on commercial television" for many years. Up to that point, PBS was the only source for quality children's television; other broadcasters voluntarily set educational standards for their programming and "were expected to regulate themselves", but it led to little change in the quality of children's programs. By the time Blue's Clues premiered in 1996, there was a large number of TV shows for children, but most of them were violent and designed to sell action toys and other products; as co-creator Angela C. Santomero put it, "a vehicle for toy-based 'commercials' ". According to author Diane Tracy in her 2002 book Blue's Clues for Success, "The state of children's television was pretty dismal".

There was little incentive for producing high-quality children's television until 1990, when Congress passed the Children's Television Act (CTA), which "required that networks be held accountable for the quality of children's programming or risk losing their license". The CTA set no hourly quotas and left it to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine compliance to the law, so little positive improvements were made. In 1996, the FCC passed additional regulations, including requiring broadcasters to, in a provision called "the Three-Hour rule", air at least three hours of children's programming per week, between the hours of 07:00 to 22:00, and that they be tagged with an E/I (Educational and Informational) logo so that children and their families could easily find the programs. The cable network Nickelodeon, which was recognized, along with PBS, as a leader in the creation and production of high-quality children's programming, was not required to comply with federal regulations to provide informative or educational content, but did so anyway, before the CTA became law.

According to Heather L. Kirkorian and her fellow researchers Ellen Wartella and Daniel Anderson in 2008, since television appeared in homes beginning in the mid-20th century, critics have often expressed concern about its impact on viewers, especially children, who as Kirkorian argued, are "active media users" by the age of three. Researchers believed that there were links between television viewing and children's cognitive and learning skills and that what children watched may be more important than how much they watched it. She reported that up until the 1980s, researchers had only an implicit theory about how viewers watched television, and that young children were cognitively passive viewers and controlled by "salient attention-eliciting features" like sound effects and fast movement. As a result, most researchers believed that television interfered with cognition and reflection and as a result, children could not learn from and process television. In the early 1980s, however, new theories about how young children watch television suggested that attention in children as young as two-years old were largely guided by program content.

### Conception

In the mid-1990s, Nickelodeon, looking to create programming for preschoolers, hired a team of three producers, Angela C. Santomero, Todd Kessler, and Traci Paige Johnson, to create a new television program for young children. According to The New York Times, Kessler was the first creator to be brought on board to the project. Kessler had worked on Sesame Street, but he disliked its format and thought that it was too static and not visual enough, and was a freelance producer at Nickelodeon at the time. Santomero, who named Fred Rogers as a major influence, worked at Nickelodeon as a researcher and Johnson was a freelance artist and animator. Santomero later said that they "were young, and Nickelodeon took a chance on us".

Daniel R. Anderson of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, who author Malcolm Gladwell called one of the "pioneering television researchers", was an adviser for the new show. Nickelodeon had hired Anderson as an adviser for its Nick Jr. block of preschool programs starting in 1993, although Santomero had already been getting his input about research informally. When Nickelodeon enlisted her to co-create Blue's Clues, he came on in a more formal capacity. Anderson later said that he "jumped at the chance" to serve as an advisor for Blue's Clues because "Nickelodeon was interested in providing programs that would actually benefit preschoolers rather than merely entertain them". Anderson also stated that the choice to produce the show as overtly and clearly educational was a departure for Nickelodeon and for any commercial network. According to research conducted by Nickelodeon, parents of preschool aged children wanted the shows they watched to be educational.

Santomero, Kessler, and Johnson met in a conference room at Viacom, which owned Nickelodeon, in New York for a month to create Blue's Clues. According to Santomero, the creators of Blue's Clues wanted to create a children's television show that was "something very simple and graphic and slow", emphasized social and emotional skills, treated children like they were smart, and helped them feel empowered. The character Blue was originally conceived as a cat, and the name of the show was to be Blue Prints, but the show's name was changed and Blue became a dog because Nickelodeon was already producing a show about a cat and because, as Anderson reported, children who watched the pilot, which was used for testing, "almost universally called the show Blue's Clues". Even though most children's television shows at the time were built around male characters, Blue was female and as The New York Times put it, "never wore a bow".

Kessler handled the show's "computer-based production", Santomero the research, and Johnson the design. By 2001, the show's research team, which worked collaboratively with the show's producers and creators, consisted of director of research Alice Wilder, who joined the Blue's Clues team shortly after the show's debut, Alison Sherman, Karen Leavitt, and Koshi Dhingra. They were given \$150,000 to produce a pilot, about a quarter of the budget for other Nickelodeon shows at the time, which was used in 1995 to test the show's interactive elements with its potential audience. The pilot was considered lost, but in 2021, Santomero announced that she owned a copy of it, and that the pilot was filmed in 1994, although it was unclear if it would ever be released due to legal issues.

### Premiere and later history

Blue's Clues premiered in the U.S. on September 8, 1996. The premiere was the highest-rated premiere of any Nickelodeon program, and the show became crucial to the network's growth. Scholar Norma Pecora called Blue's Clues the "cornerstone" of Nickelodeon's educational programming. By the end of 1997, it was the highest-rated show for preschoolers on commercial television, and was the third-highest rated show behind children's public television shows; Barney & Friends and Arthur. Within 18 months of its premiere, Blue's Clues was as well known among the parents of preschoolers as more established children's shows such as Sesame Street and Barney & Friends. In 2002, Tracy reported that it was one of the highest-rated shows for preschoolers, was preschool children and their parents' favorite cable preschool program, was viewed by approximately 13.7 million viewers each week, and aired in about 60 countries.

In 2000, after 75 episodes, with "no fanfare" and no announcement from Nickelodeon, co-creator and co-producer Todd Kessler left Blue's Clues and the network to pursue other projects. He told The New York Times that he had "no hard feelings" regarding his departure. Kessler continued to be listed as an executive producer for the run of the show and for any future spin-offs. Also in 2000, CBS, which was also owned by Viacom, began airing the show as part of the centerpiece of its Saturday and Sunday morning children's programming. In 2004, Blue's Clues stopped production, which Santomero called "devastating", although it continued to air on Nickelodeon, and a spin-off, Blue's Room, was launched in the same year. It featured puppets, as well as the original show's second host. Blue's Clues celebrated its 10-year anniversary in 2006 with a prime time special and the release of a DVD entitled "Blues Biggest Stories", which consisted of eight half-hour episodes spanning the show's history.

In November 2019, a reboot of Blue's Clues premiered. The show, called Blue's Clues & You!, is hosted by Josh Dela Cruz and features many of the same characters in the original show. Steve Burns, the original show's first host, serves as a writer and director on the new show; he has also made guest appearances, along with the original show's second host Donovan Patton, and participated in the casting of Dela Cruz.

### Casting

The most important casting decision was that of the host, the only human character in the show. The host's role was to empower and challenge the show's young viewers, to help increase their self-esteem, and to strongly connect with them through the television screen. The producers originally wanted a female host. After months of research and over 1,000 auditions, they hired actor/performer Steve Burns based on the strength of his audition. Burns received the strongest and most enthusiastic response in tests with the young audience. Johnson said what made Burns a great children's TV host was that "he didn't want to be a children's host ... He loved kids, but he didn't want to make a career out of it". Burns decided to leave the show in the autumn of 2000, departing in January 2001. He was in over 100 episodes of Blue's Clues when his final episodes aired in April 2002. Burns himself stated, "I knew I wasn't gonna be doing children's television all my life, mostly because I refused to lose my hair on a kid's TV show, and it was happenin' – fast."

After the producers conducted 1,500 auditions, Burns was replaced by actor Donovan Patton, who played Steve's brother Joe, introduced to the audience in articles in Nickelodeon's magazine and on its webpage and an arc of three episodes. Burns' departure generated "outlandish rumors" and was featured in a Time magazine story. Patton had never seen Blue's Clues before he auditioned for the part, and like Burns, who worked with him to help him prepare for the role, was also popular with preschool test audiences. The producers later reported that finding someone who could match Burns' "deceptively simple performance" was difficult. Patton became a "household name", although as Johnson stated, his character was named Joe because "Donovan was a little too hard on a preschooler's tongue". According to The New York Times, Donovan played the role more relaxed and "taller" than Burns.

Even though research demonstrated that children tend to pay less attention to adult male voices, Burns and Patton were chosen as the program's hosts because they were popular with their audience. Daniel Anderson insisted that Burns and Patton were the best actors for their roles out of the hundreds who auditioned, calling them "actors who could mime as demanded by the mixed action and animation format", and reported that there was no evidence that children paid less attention to them than to other parts of the program. He also said that Burns and Patton overcame what he called "attentional bias against men" in three ways: by behaving energetically and childlike; by breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to the audience, often by looking directly into the camera and asking their audience, "Will you help?", and like Fred Rogers, forming a direct relationship to the audience; and by "always doing something". Anderson insisted that by forming a relationship with the audience, the actors' male voice became cues to the audience to pay attention and stated that it was the hosts' style of presentation that determined child attention.

Johnson was cast as Blue's voice because, of the show's crew, she was able to sound the most like a dog. Nick Balaban, who wrote the music for the show along with Michael Rubin, was cast as the voice of Mr. Salt. Balaban initially used a Brooklyn accent for Mr. Salt before settling on a French accent. Rubin also provided the voice of Mailbox.

## Format

In The Tipping Point, author Malcolm Gladwell, who called Blues Clues the " 'stickiest'—meaning the most irresistible and involving—television show ever", described its format:

> Steve, the host, presents the audience with a puzzle involving Blue, the animated dog ... To help the audience unlock the puzzle, Blue leaves behind a series of clues, which are objects marked with one of her paw prints. In between the discovery of the clues, Steve plays a series of games—mini-puzzles—with the audience that are thematically related to the overall puzzle ... As the show unfolds, Steve and Blue move from one animated set to another, jumping through magical doorways, leading viewers on a journey of discovery, until, at the end of the story, Steve returns to the living room. There, at the climax of the show, he sits down in a comfortable chair to think—a chair known, of course, in the literal world of Blue's Clues, as the Thinking Chair. He puzzles over Blue's three clues and attempts to come up with the answer.

Nickelodeon researcher Daniel R. Anderson called the structure of Blue's Clues a game that presented its viewers with increasingly challenging and developmentally appropriate problems to solve. Early episodes focused on basic subjects such as colors and numbers, but later the programs focused on math, physics, anatomy, and astronomy. The show's producers believed that comprehension and attention were strongly connected, so they wrote the episodes to encourage and increase their viewers' attention. They used content and production characteristics such as pacing which gave children time to respond, as well as "camera techniques, children's voices, musical cues, sound effects, clear transitions, repeatable dialogue, and visuals". Participation, in the form of spoken or physical response from the audience, and the mastery of thinking skills were encouraged by the use of repetition, both within the structure of individual episodes and across multiple episodes. The producers used a variety of formal features, which were auditory, and content features, which consisted of invitations given to the audience. The features were also in the form of both recurrent and unique formats and content. The purpose of the recurrent formats and content, which were similar in every episode, was to increase viewers' attention, comprehension, and participation during key educational lessons.

Nickelodeon originally aired the same episode daily for five days before showing the next one. The producers believed this telecast strategy empowered young children by giving them many opportunities to master the content and problems presented to them. Scholar Norma Pecora considered the broadcast strategy of airing the same episode for five consecutive days in a week "sound educational thinking", because children tend to watch the same episodes multiple times and learn from repetition, and "economically clever" because the network could air 2.5 hours with one episode over five days.

## Educational goals

The creators and producers' mission of Blue's Clues was to "empower, challenge, and build the self-esteem of preschoolers ... while making them laugh". According to Anderson and his colleagues, the show's curriculum was based on "inherent respect for preschoolers and their ability to think and learn while having fun". Anderson and his colleagues stated that Blue's Clues was created with the question: What does television teach young children? Kessler, Santomero, and Johnson were influenced by Mister Rogers' Neighborhood and by Sesame Street, the first children's television program to create a detailed and comprehensive educational curriculum developed from research and use developmental theory, child development, learning theory, and research. According to Anderson, it was essential that the writers and creators of Blue's Clues have background and experience in early childhood development theory and research in order to ensure that the audience understood the dialogue, game, and recurrent program elements in each episode.

Like Sesame Street, formative research was an important part of the development of each episode of Blue's Clues, which was included in the show's production budgets . "We wanted to learn from Sesame Street and take it one step further", Santomero said. The producers and creators used formative research, which the producers called their "secret sauce", during all aspects of the program's creative and decision-making process, and Nickelodeon provided the funding to support it. In addition to a curriculum that emphasized reasoning skills relevant to preschoolers' everyday lives, the producers wanted to include audience participation, called by Variety its "call and response style", that encouraged problem solving, mastery of the information presented, positive reinforcement, and prosocial messages. They believed that a strong sense of self-esteem, which they sought to develop in their viewers, was linked to independent thinking and thinking skills. Anderson stated, "Age-appropriate pacing and explicit directions give children an opportunity to have a voice". Anderson and his colleagues compared audience participation on the program with hands-on practice provided by a caregiver. The show's producers believed, despite the viewpoints of past researchers, that children were intellectually active while watching television.

Sesame Street tested a third of its episodes, but the Blue's Clues research team field tested every episode three times with children aged between two and six in a variety of preschool environments such as Head Start programs, public schools, and private day care centers, in order to ascertain their abilities, interests, and knowledge, to ensure the mission and philosophy of the program, and to ensure balanced demographic groups. There were three phases of testing: content evaluation, video evaluations, and content analysis. In their tests of the pilot, conducted throughout the New York City area with over 100 children aged from three to seven, they found that as the pilot progressed, children's attention was captured and sustained, and they became excited and actively participated, standing to get closer to the television and speaking to the host. The producers and researchers also consulted outside advisers, who were chosen based on their expertise and the needs of each script. As Anderson stated, the formative research team served "as a liaison between the feedback provided by the preschoolers and outside advisers and the production team, including writers, talent, producers, directors, element artists, and animators".

Blue's Clues was designed and produced on the assumption that since children are cognitively active when they watch television, a television program could be an effective method of scientific education for young children by telling stories through pictures and by modeling behavior and learning. These learning opportunities included the use of mnemonics in the form of mantras and songs, and what Tracy called "metacognitive wrap-up" at the end of each episode, in which the lessons were summarized and rehearsed. The producers wanted to foster their audience's sense of empowerment by eliciting their assistance for the show's host and by encouraging their identification with the character Blue, who served as a stand-in for the typical preschooler.

The thinking games presented in each episode used what Anderson called "a layered approach" that took the varying capabilities of the audience into account. Santomero said that they used scaffolding and that layering was inherent in the script and design of each game. They purposely presented the problem presented in increasing levels of difficulty, to prevent children from feeling frustrated and to master concepts, experience success, and feel empowered to attempt to solve more challenging concepts presented to them. The producers' goal was that all viewers understood the problem, even if they did not know how to solve it. As a result, the child was temporary frustrated by not knowing the answer because after giving them time to come up with it, child voice-overs provided the answers for them, so that they learned the correct answers, even if they were unable to come up with them. If the child was able to come up with the answers, however, they felt "part of a larger, knowing, child audience" when their answers were confirmed by the voice-overs. The child voice-overs also helped viewers maintain high levels of attention during critical educational portions of the episode and modelled the audience involvement encouraged by the program. The audience was told how they could help problem-solve by the host explaining how, by the child voice-overs modeling verbal participation, and by giving them enough time to respond. According to Johnson, the slow pace of the program was challenging for television directors used to the fast pace of television production and for parents, who praised the pace but expressed concerns that their children would find it boring.

Sesame Street reflected the prevailing view that preschoolers had short attention spans; it featured a magazine-like format consisting of varied segments. Based on research conducted over the 30 years since the launch of Sesame Street by theorists like Anderson, the producers of Blue's Clues wanted to develop a show that took advantage of children's intellectual and behavioral activity when watching television. Previous children's television programs presented their content with little input from their viewers, but Blue's Clues was one of the first children's shows to actively invite its viewers' involvement. Its creators believed that if children were more involved in what they were viewing, they would attend to its content longer than previously expected—for up to a half hour—and learn more. They also dropped the magazine format for a more traditional narrative format. As Variety magazine stated, "The choice for Blue's Clues became to tell one story, beginning to end, camera moving left-to-right like reading a storybook, transitions from scene to scene as obvious as the turning of a page". Every episode of Blue's Clues was structured in this way.

The pace of Blue's Clues was deliberate, and its material was presented clearly. Similar to Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, this was done was in the use of pauses that were "long enough to give the youngest time to think, short enough for the oldest not to get bored". The length of the pauses, which was estimated from formative research, gave children enough time to process the information and solve the problem. After pausing, child voice-overs provided the answers so that they were given to children who had not come up with the solution and helped encourage viewer participation. Researcher Alisha M. Crawley and her colleagues stated that although earlier programs sometimes invited overt audience participation, Blue's Clues was "unique in making overt involvement a systematic research-based design element". Blue's Clues also differed from Sesame Street by not using cultural references or humor aimed at adults, as this could confuse preschoolers but, instead, made the show literal, which the producers felt would better hold the children's attention. The structure of each episode was repetitive, designed to provide preschoolers with comfort and predictability. Repetition of the same skills used in different contexts or games within and across episodes encouraged the mastery of thinking skills and the approach to content within an episode was consistent with learning theory that emphasized situated cognition and provided all viewers, no matter their age or abilities, with repeated opportunities to try to solve the problems presented.

Since preschoolers tend to have difficulty understanding transitions, especially when they involve active inferences about time, space, and characters' perspective, the program's producers minimized transitions that required inference so that their viewers' intellectual resources could be devoted to understanding the episode's content. They accomplished this goal by limiting the number of settings during an episode and with the transitions occurring only between them and signaled by dialogue and enough time and information necessary to process them. The primary settings in Blue's Clues were the host's house and backyard, and transitions between them were usually done continuously, without the use of cuts. If transitions were accompanied by cuts, it was done by the host moving to and through a door and continuing as he entered the front or backyard. The biggest transition in Blue's Clues occurred when the host "skiddoed" and jumped into a picture or book, done in a magical way with plenty of warning that it was coming, and began and ended in the new environment. Anderson reported that children clearly understood and enjoyed the skiddo transition. Santomero reported that the skidoo transition was inspired by the use of the trolley in Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, which also served as a transition device.

## Production

The producers and writers of Blue's Clues used content and television production techniques such as camera techniques, the use of children's voices, musical cues, sound effects, repeatable dialogue, and visuals in order to encourage and increase comprehension and attention. Blue's Clues was set in the home—the environment that was most familiar and secure for preschoolers—and looked like no other children's television show. The theme and topic of each episode, which was in development, from idea development to final production, for approximately one year, was chosen by the research team. Writers created a goal sheet, which identified their objectives based on the show's curriculum and audience needs. According to show researcher Koshi Dhingra and her colleagues, the integration of writing and researching Blue's Clues was unique and involved "an extremely collaborative process". Script drafts, once developed and approved by the show's creators and research team, were tested at public and private schools, day care centers, preschools, and Head Start programs by three researchers, who would narrate the story in the form of a storybook and take notes about the children's responses. The writers and creators revised the scripts based on this feedback. A rough video, in which the host performed from the revised script in front of a blue screen with no animation, was filmed and retested. The script was revised based on the audiences' responses, tested a third time with animation and music added, and incorporated into future productions.

According to Dhingra and her colleagues, the researchers represented the preschool viewer. After coming up with an idea for an episode, the writers met with Alice Wilder, head of the research department for Blue's Clues, to discuss their idea. The research department and writers then discussed if the topic and approach to the topic was appropriate for preschoolers, and if they accepted it, the content of the episode was further developed. They would often bring in outside consultants who were experts in the subject matter and the processes in teaching it to preschoolers. Wilder considered the researchers experts in how the concepts they wanted to present would translate to the medium of television rather than in a classroom or museum, but they considered preschoolers, who evaluated each script from their perspective, to be their " true experts". The writer took the information they gathered from the research department, preschoolers, and experts and wrote a treatment, or detailed outline of the script, which included goals for the entire episode and for each game. The writers, Wilder, and the research team had a treatment meeting, which Dhingra and her colleagues described as "an organized creative brainstorm", which was rooted in the philosophy and mission of the show, the art of good storytelling, and the point of view of their viewers. The goal of the treatment meeting was to give the writers everything they needed to create a workable second draft of the episode script, and to ensure that it fit the needs of their viewers.

The researchers brought in experts, if needed, and then, at the second draft stage, interviewed preschoolers. Preschooler testing was conducted in three rounds: the concept test, and video test, and content analysis. The producers and creators of the show, during their interviews of preschoolers, created a rough version of the episode, with the host and preliminary animations and backgrounds, and showed it to preschoolers to gain further feedback and was designed to assess their reactions to the content and visuals. According to Dhingra and her colleagues, the greatest strengths of the development of all episodes of Blue's Clues were the high levels of collaboration between all departments involved in the creation of the show, the clearly-defined strategies they used to effectively include their preschool viewers in the development process, and their use of the mission, philosophy, and structure of the program to create and develop each episode.

Most of the show's production was done in-house, rather than by outside companies as was customary for children's TV shows at the time. Blue's Clues was filmed in a studio in Tribeca, Manhattan, New York. The show's creators understood that the look and visual design of the show would be integral to children's attachment with it. Johnson expanded on the "cut-out" style she had created during her college years. Blue's Clues was the first animated series for preschoolers that utilized simple cut-out construction paper shapes of familiar objects with a wide variety of colors and textures, resembling a storybook. Johnson also used primary colors and organized each room of the home setting into groups. The green-striped shirt worn by the show's original host, Steve, was inspired by Fruit Stripe gum. The goals were to make the show look natural and simplistic; as Tracy put it, "freshly cut and glued together with a vivid array of textures, colors, and shadows" similar to picture book illustrations. The program's design was influenced by an understanding of the cognitive, emotional, and social capabilities of preschoolers. For example, the purpose of the notebook in Blue's Clues, which was used to record the clues presented throughout an episode, was to teach preschoolers how to overcome their poorly developed memory skills by using external mnemonic aids and lists. The music, produced by composer Michael Rubin and pianist Nick Balaban, was simple, had a natural sound, and exposed children to a wide variety of genres and instruments. Rubin and Balaban used Anderson's research about the importance of using auditory cues to increase children's attention and inserted auditory signatures to encourage the audience to pay attention to the episodes "at critical junctures for learning". According to Tracy, the music empowered children and gave the show "a sense of playfulness, a sense of joy, and a sense of the fantastic". Rubin and Balaban encouraged the musicians who performed for the show to improvise.

The host performed each episode in front of a "blue screen", with animation added later. The show's digital design department combined high-tech and low-tech methods by creating and photographing three-dimensional objects, then cutting them out and placing them into the background, which made the objects look more real and added perspective and depth. Johnson hired artist Dave Palmer and production company Big Pink to create the animation, which was at that time a new technology, from simple materials like fabric, paper, or pipe-cleaners, and scan them into a Macintosh computer so that they could be animated using inexpensive computer software such as Media 100, Ultimatte, Photoshop and After Effects. instead of being repeatedly redrawn as in traditional animation. Johnson credited Kessler with the idea of using the Macintosh. The result was something that looked different from anything else on television at the time, and the producers were able to animate two episodes in eight weeks, as compared to the sixteen weeks necessary to create a single episode by traditional methods. Their process looked like traditional cut-out animation, but was faster, more flexible, and less expensive, and it allowed them to make changes based on feedback from test audiences. Unlike traditional animation environments, which tended to be highly structured, the animators were given information about the characters and goals of the scenes they would animate, and then given the freedom to work out the timing and look of each scene themselves, as long as their creations were true to the characters and to the story. By 1999, the show's animation department consisted of Palmer, twenty animators, eleven digital designers, and five art directors and model makers. By 2002, Nickelodeon had built a "state-of-the-art" \$6 million digital animation studio that housed 140 people, including 70 animators.

## Reception

Ratings for Blue's Clues were high during its first season, and it was Nickelodeon's most popular preschool program. It has been described as the first commercial television show for preschoolers that was both educational and profitable. Its creators met regularly with businesses that developed Blue's Clues merchandise and products to ensure toys that were educational and met "the same high ... standards as the show". Products, like the show, were heavily tested prior to marketing. Blue's Clues had sold almost 40 million units of its 45 VHS and DVD titles by 1998 and generated over \$1 billion in product licensing in 2000. More than ten million Blue's Clues books were in print by 2001 and over three million copies of six CD-ROM titles based on the show had been sold. Seven Blue's Clues titles sold at least 1 million copies each. The show's first direct-to-video production was Blue's Big Musical Movie (2000), featuring Ray Charles and The Persuasions; it received mostly positive reviews and has sold over 3 million copies since 2006. The launch of Blue's Clues products at FAO Schwarz's flagship store in New York City was the most successful product launch in the store's history and was attended by over 7,000 people. Steve Burns' final episode in 2002 was viewed by 1.9 million preschoolers and received a 47 percent share of the overall audience. By 2002, Blue's Clues had received several awards for children's programming, educational software, and licensing. It won eight consecutive Emmys between 1998 and 2005 and won a Peabody Award in 2001.

Starting in 1999, a live production of Blue's Clues toured the U.S. to positive reviews. As of 2002, over 2 million people had attended over 1,000 performances. The creators of the TV show were involved in all aspects of the live show, aiming to translate the bond between the TV show's audience and its cast to the stage. The creators chose Jonathan Hochwald as the live show's producer, Gip Hoppe as its director, and Dave Gallo as its set designer. Neither Hoppe nor Gallo had any previous experience in children's theater. Nick Balaban and Michael Rubin, who wrote the music for the TV show, composed the live show's soundtrack. The producers were concerned with children's response to the host, who was played by Tom Mizer (a different actor than the host of the TV show), but his young audience enthusiastically accepted and embraced him. Actors were encouraged to improvise and respond to the audience, which resulted in changes throughout the show's run. The show's script included humor that both children and their parents could enjoy.

Regional versions of the show, featuring native hosts, have been produced in other countries. Kevin Duala hosted the United Kingdom version and the show became part of pop culture in South Korea. In total, Blue's Clues was syndicated in 120 countries, and was translated into 15 languages. In 2000, it became one of the first preschool shows to incorporate American Sign Language into its content, with between five and ten signs used consistently in each episode. Blue's Clues won an award from the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness (GLAD) for promoting deaf awareness in the media.

## Cultural influence and impact

The extensive use of research in the development and production process of Blue's Clues inspired several studies that provided evidence for its effectiveness as a learning tool. As Anderson and his colleagues reported, Blue's Clues had "a beneficial cognitive and social impact" the longer younger children watched it, which increased steadily over time, and that its benefits to cognitive development are both durable and cumulative. They also believed that the research conducted on the program demonstrated that when children's television programs were based on information gained from child development concepts, had a systematic curriculum, and were designed with "a research-based understanding of how children use and understand television, it can be a powerful and positive influence". As they stated, "it appears that the program is not only doing well, but it is also doing good”. In 2004, Anderson said that Blue's Clues "raised the bar" for educational television; he and Variety reported that audience participation became an important part of other educational preschool TV programs such as Dora the Explorer and Sesame Street. Anderson also reported that after Blue's Clues, all of Nickelodeon's educational programming included the use of formative research.

In 2019, shortly after the premiere of Blue's Clues & You, the New York Times called Blue's Clues "something of a throwback: a leisurely paced, unflashy show with the educational bona fides of its public TV predecessors Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street". It also stated that Blue's Clues paved the way for shows like Dora the Explorer. The program was the first children's cable show built entirely around direct address, the first to invite preschoolers to play along with the characters with games and "mini-mysteries", and the first to include built-in silences designed for child participation. As The New York Times stated, "The show was interactive before interactivity became mundane".

Based on anecdotal evidence that preschoolers enjoyed repeated viewings of the programs they watched on television, including Anderson's own experience with his four-year-old daughter, who asked to watch a tape of the pilot of Blue's Clues 17 times, the producers decided to repeat each episode daily for a week. Despite no published evidence that repeated viewings resulted in increased comprehension, especially for younger viewers, and would reinforce the problem-solving skills taught in each episode, and because they did not have enough money to produce a full season of episodes, Nickelodeon agreed to their broadcast strategy, and they were the first network to experiment with the approach. In the summer of 1996, before the premiere of Blue's Clues, Santomero, Anderson, and Wilder conducted a study, funded by Nickelodeon, about the effect of repeated viewings of the pilot episode on its viewers and their ability to learn the curriculum content contained in the episode.

Anderson reported that the results of the study were "clear, striking, and to us, very interesting". They found that except for the five-year-old boys they tested, audience participation greatly increased with repetition, especially for the problem-solving portions of an episode, as did their comprehension and problem solving. Anderson stated, "As children learned how to solve the problems they would shout out the answers, talk to Steve, point to the screen, jump up with excitement, and so on". After five viewings, children had also become skilled at solving similar problems that had not been presented in the episode. Anderson reported that the repetition broadcast strategy worked during the program's first year. Nickelodeon used the same strategy for its premiere of Dora the Explorer in 2000, and Nielsen ratings for both programs indicated no change in audience size during the time the repetitions aired. The study also demonstrated that watching Blue's Clues changed how children watch television and that their problem-solving skills and interaction would transfer to other programs they watched.

In 1999, Anderson and a team of researchers, some of which were his colleagues at Nickelodeon, studied how episode repetition affected comprehension, audience participation, and visual attention. The researchers tested whether repeated viewings of the show resulted in mastery over the material presented, or whether viewers would habituate to what they watched or become bored. The study demonstrated that for the first few repetitions, children pay close attention to the educational content because it was more cognitively demanding. The researchers concluded that audience participation was lower because children were devoting more of their cognitive resources to understanding and solving the problem presented in the episode. When they mastered the problems, which the researchers suspected happened the third time the children viewed the episode, they paid the same amount of attention to the educational content as to the entertainment content, which was less demanding. Audience participation, however, increased because their cognitive resources were freed up and because they knew the answers to the questions asked by the host and other characters. Anderson and his colleagues believed that their study proved that episode repetition appeared to foster their viewers' empowerment, as demonstrated in the viewers' enthusiastic efforts to help solve problems the host and other characters posed.

The study also demonstrated that experienced viewers (those familiar with the program) looked less at the screen than inexperienced viewers. All children looked at educational content more than at entertainment content. Experienced viewers looked at content unique to the program, but inexperienced viewers did not distinguish between the two types of content, since for them, all content was new. Experienced viewers interacted with the program more and showed better comprehension of the content than inexperienced viewers, especially when they were exposed to content that was repeated across episodes. As Anderson and his colleagues put it, "These results further support the notion that when content is new and challenging, preschoolers pay greater attention, but when it is in a recurrent format and therefore readily mastered, they interact more". In other words, "Interaction in Blue's Clues to some extent thus reflects mastery". Nielsen ratings of the show's first season, when the same episode was shown daily, were flat over the five-day period, which indicated to Anderson that young children did not tire of its repetition or of its complexity over time. According to Crawley and her colleagues, the producers' repeat broadcast strategy had no negative effectives of the program's ratings and appeared to be a success.

In 2000, another team of researchers, including Anderson, Crawley, and other Nickelodeon colleagues, studied if watching Blue's Clues changed the way children watch television and if they learned "an interactive style of television viewing”, meaning that they were more interactive with an episode from a different series than viewers who did not have experience watching Blue’s Clues. They compared experienced and unexperienced viewers as they watched an episode of Big Bag, a “curriculum-based magazine format” series that aired on Cartoon Network, directed towards approximately the same audience as Blue’s Clues. They found that although experienced Blue's Clues viewers paid less overall attention to Big Bag than inexperienced viewers, their patterns of attention across Big Bag were identical to their attention to an episode of Blue's Clues. They also demonstrated that viewers had the same amount of comprehension in both programs, but Blue's Clues viewers interacted more with Big Bag than inexperienced viewers. When the content of Big Bag was new and challenging, Blue's Clues viewers paid more attention, and when it was familiar, either from previous viewings or in a format they recognized, they interacted with it more. In short, Anderson and his colleagues found that "interaction in Blue's Clues to some extent reflects mastery" and felt that their study demonstrated that watching Blue's Clues changed how young children watch television. Researcher Shalom M. Fisch, however, stated that although the show attempted to be "participatory", it could not truly be so, because unlike interactive computer games, the viewers' responses could not change or influence what occurred on-screen.

In 2002, Crawley, Anderson, and their colleagues conducted another study on the effects of Blue's Clues, this time researching whether more experienced viewers mastered the content and cognitive challenges faster and easier than first-time viewers. They surmised that experienced viewers would comprehend and interact more with the recurring and familiar segments of the show designed to aid comprehension, but they found that familiarity with the structure of an individual episode did not provide experienced viewers with an advantage over the inexperienced viewers. Crawley and Anderson also studied whether experienced viewers of Blue's Clues interacted more with other children's TV shows and whether the viewing behaviors they learned from Blue's Clues could be transferred to other shows. They found that although experienced viewers of Blue's Clues interacted with an episode of another series, they did not spend more time watching it than viewers unfamiliar with the show. The researchers stated, "It is apparent that, although preschoolers learn to enthusiastically engage in overt audience participation, they do not, by and large, have a metacognitive understanding of why they do so."

The 2002 studies demonstrated that experience with watching one TV series affects how children watch other programs, especially in the way they interact with them. They also showed that since children are selective in the material they attend to and that their interaction increases with comprehension and mastery, children tend to pay more attention to novel information and interact more with material they have seen before and mastered. According to Crawley and her colleagues, Blue's Clues demonstrated that television could empower and influence children's long-term motivation for and a love of learning. As they stated, "One need only to watch children watch Blue’s Clues to realize that they respond to it with enormous enthusiasm".

Erin Ryan and her colleagues performed a 2009 study on the effect of the use of American Sign Language (ASL) in Blue's Clues episodes. They analyzed 16 episodes over two weeks for the content and frequency of the signs used and found a high incidence of ASL use by various characters, but that it was inconsistent, especially in the connection between English words and their corresponding signs. The purpose of signed communication and its connection with ASL and the Deaf community was also not clearly explained. The researchers speculated that hearing children with no previous ASL exposure would become familiar with ASL and with deaf people by these episodes, thus reducing the stigma attached to deafness and hard of hearing individuals. Based on other research about the positive effects of teaching ASL to hearing children, the researchers also speculated that it could lead to an increase of vocabulary skills and IQ, as well as improve interpersonal communication. They surmised that deaf children would feel more included and less isolated and have more opportunities to view positive models of ASL and deaf people.

Georgene L. Troseth and her colleagues at Vanderbilt University studied how toddlers used information gained from prerecorded video and from interactions with a person through closed-circuit video, and found that two-year-old children did not learn as much from prerecorded videos because the videos lacked social cues and personal references. Two-year-olds who viewed a video with instructions about how to find a toy in an adjoining room from a non-interactive researcher did not use the information, even though they smiled and responded to questions. Troseth speculated that their research had implications for interactive educational shows like Blue's Clues, which although was "on the right track" because the host invited interaction with the show's viewers, did not provide children with the social cues to solve real-world problems. Troseth stated that repetition, repeated exposure, and familiarity with the show's host may increase children's ability to learn facts and to use strategies they learn from Blue's Clues to solve new problems. Her research suggested that Blue's Clues engaged young children and elicited their active participation because they mimicked social interaction.

## 2019 revival

On March 6, 2018, Nickelodeon announced a revival of the series, with a new host and 20 new episodes. An open casting call for the show's new host occurred in April, and production began in the summer of 2018. On September 13, 2018, it was announced that the show would be titled Blue's Clues & You!, and Josh Dela Cruz would be the host of the revival. The show premiered on November 11, 2019.

## See also

- List of Blue's Clues episodes

American children's television show

1990s American animated television series

1990s American children's comedy television series

1990s American children's television series

1990s preschool education television series

2000s American animated television series

2000s American children's comedy television series

2000s American children's television series

2000s preschool education television series

American children's animated comedy television series

American children's animated fantasy television series

American children's animated musical television series

American preschool education television series

American stop-motion animated television series

American television series with live action and animation

American television shows featuring puppetry

Animated preschool education television series

Peabody Award-winning television programs

Television series by 9 Story Media Group

Television series created by Angela Santomero


Northrop F-20 Tigershark

The Northrop F-20 Tigershark (initially F-5G) is a light fighter, designed and built by Northrop. Its development began in 1975 as a further evolution of Northrop's F-5E Tiger II, featuring a new engine that greatly improved overall performance, and a modern avionics suite including a powerful and flexible radar. Compared with the F-5E, the F-20 was much faster, gained beyond-visual-range air-to-air capability, and had a full suite of air-to-ground modes capable of utilizing most U.S. weapons. With these improved capabilities, the F-20 became competitive with contemporary fighter designs such as the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, but was much less expensive to purchase and operate.

Much of the F-20's development was carried out under a US Department of Defense (DoD) project called "FX". FX sought to develop fighters that would be capable in combat with the latest Soviet aircraft, but excluding sensitive front-line technologies used by the United States Air Force's own aircraft. FX was a product of the Carter administration's military export policies, which aimed to provide foreign nations with high quality equipment without the risk of US front-line technology falling into Soviet hands. Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market, but policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design. The development program was abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.

## Development

### F-5

When John F. Kennedy entered office in 1961, the U.S. Department of Defense was instructed to find an inexpensive fighter aircraft that the United States could offer to its allies through the Mutual Defense Assistance Act. A number of designs were studied, including stripped-down versions of the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter and Vought F-8 Crusader, and the newly designed Northrop N-156F. On 23 April 1962, the United States Air Force (USAF) informed the United States Secretary of Defense that the N-156F had been selected, under the designation F-5 and given the name "Freedom Fighter." 847 F-5s of various early marks would be produced.

As the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 became more common, the U.S. Air Force initiated the International Fighter Aircraft (IFA) program to provide an equivalent to allies. The USAF desired a light weight fighter with competitive performance to the MiG, inexpensive when purchased in large numbers, and with reasonable operating costs for prospective customer nations. Although numerous companies entered designs, Northrop's existing F-5 put them in a leading position. They submitted an upgrade, the F-5E Tiger II, with the AN/APQ-153 radar and other changes to allow the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile to be fired from wing-tip rails. On 20 November 1970, Northrop's entry was announced as the IFA winner. Northrop produced a total of 1,399 F-5E/F Tiger IIs by the time manufacturing ended in 1986.

### F-5G and export limitations

In the late 1970s, the Taiwanese Republic of China Air Force started looking for a fighter aircraft to match improvements made in the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force. In particular, they wanted a platform capable of firing the AIM-7 Sparrow long-range missile. At the time, the US was in the process of opening up ties with the People's Republic of China after President Nixon's famous visit in 1972. China considered US support of Taiwan against their interests, and the US State Department wanted to tread carefully. They blocked export of all of the AIM-7 capable aircraft, even otherwise outdated early models of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The State Department suggested the Israeli IAI Kfir instead; however, it was rejected. Taiwan was already producing the F-5E under license, so the Department of Defense asked Northrop to study adding an AIM-7 capable radar to the Tiger II as an alternative. This effort became the first of several F-5G studies.

In the spring of 1977, Jimmy Carter's administration had announced a new military export policy that limited sales of front line designs to NATO, Australia, and Japan. Carter stated at the time that the U.S. could not be "both the world's champion of peace and the world's leading supplier of the weapons of war." Previously, there was no coherent export policy, fueling concerns that the US's latest technologies might quickly end up in Soviet hands.

Numerous exceptions were made; Israel and Egypt could buy advanced designs under the Camp David Agreements, Israel was even allowed to buy McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagles, a key component in U.S. air-defense technology. Iran was already receiving the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, and this demonstrated the problem with advanced exports in February 1979 when reports emerged that Iran had sold an AIM-54 Phoenix missile to the Soviets. South Korea's F-16 order was initially blocked under this policy, but later allowed in the context of strengthening relations. Despite exceptions, the export policy was implemented, covering many potential and current customers. As the F-5G was a relatively modest upgrade to the F-5E, the F-5G appeared to be in a strong position for sales given the limitations placed on rival designs; nonetheless, President Carter personally blocked the sales of the F-5G to Taiwan.

### FX

In 1979, problems with the export policy were becoming apparent. The Soviets continued to sell newer aircraft designs to their clients, placing allies of the U.S. at a disadvantage. Denied by the U.S., countries were turning to other vendors for modern fighters, notably France's Dassault Mirage 2000. Barry N. Blechman, Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, testified that the US reductions in foreign arms transfers had actually encouraged other nations and increased worldwide arms sales. At the same time, there was considerable pressure to provide a suitable aircraft for Taiwan.

The State Department argued that the U.S. needed a modern counterpart for the role the F-5E had occupied in the 1960s and 1970s. In light of Carter's concerns, they suggested that a new aircraft be designed for the role, based on technology that would not pose a threat to the U.S. After a lengthy study, in January 1980, President Carter allowed the development of a new export fighter: the FX. The FX would have to outperform the F-5E; however, it could not use any advanced avionics systems that were also used in U.S. aircraft. Unlike the Mutual Defense Assistance Act programs that led to the F-5E, FX would be entirely privately financed. Moreover, the companies could not market the aircraft directly; all sales would be handled by the Department of Defense.

Both Northrop and General Dynamics (GD) responded to the FX requirement. GD's F-16/79 was a variant of the F-16A, replacing the Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan engine with the J79 turbojet and equipping it with downgraded avionics; Northrop responded with the F-5G.

### F-20

When Ronald Reagan's administration entered office in 1981, the export restrictions put in place by the Carter administration were slowly relaxed. At first, the FX program continued as normal, but a number of events eroded the value of the program and limited the F-5G's potential sales. The signing of the 1982 US-PRC Joint Communiqué was a major agreement on arms sales, which continued blocking sales of the F-5G to Taiwan. By this point the Taiwanese had started their own light fighter project, the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. In signing the Communiqué, the U.S. was signaling that Taiwan would not receive modern aircraft; accordingly, the Ching-kuo became Taiwan's primary focus. As a result, the F-5G's sales potential remained unestablished.

In the summer of 1982, Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci sent a memorandum to the Air Force, encouraging it to seek out potential foreign customers to procure FX aircraft. However, four months later Carlucci sent a classified memo to the same services to abandon the FX, and green-lighting the exporting of front-line fighters overseas. In December, after prompting from the White House, Carlucci reversed his position again, and directed the Air Force to fund a small number of F-20s in the fiscal year 1984 budget.

The future of the FX program seemed doubtful. Following an agreement to sell F-16s to Pakistan, Northrop felt that the F-5G needed to match the performance of F-16. This would require not only better performance from the engine, but a new and comparable avionics suite as well. Northrop saw that the F-5G was still being viewed as the "FX fighter", a low-cost option for second-tier air forces. To offset this impression, Northrop requested the designation "F-20"; the USAF approved in late 1982, and of the name Tigershark in March 1983.

## Design

The primary design change between the earlier F-5E and the F-20 was the use of a single General Electric F404 engine, which was originally designed for the F/A-18 Hornet. The new engine provided 60% more thrust than the combined output of the F-5E's two General Electric J85s. This improved the aircraft's thrust-to-weight ratio from 1.0 to 1.13. The new engine gave a speed of over Mach 2.0, a ceiling over 55,000 ft (16,800 m), an initial climb rate of 52,800 ft per minute (16,100m/min).

The wing profile remained the same as the F-5E, but had modified leading edge extensions (LEX), which improved the maximum lift coefficient of the wing by about 12% with an increase in wing area of only 1.6%. The original aircraft was fairly sluggish in pitch, so the horizontal stabilizer was increased in size by 30% and a new dual-channel fly-by-wire control system was added. Destabilizing the aircraft in pitch and modifying the LEX improved the instantaneous turn rate by 7% to 20°/sec. Sustained turn rate at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft (4,572 m) rose to 11.5°/sec, which compared well with the F-16's 12.8°/sec. Supersonic turn rates were 47% higher than those of the F-5E.

The F-20 would also make greater usage of composite materials in its construction. During its development, several areas using metal were re-designed to use fiberglass, and there were numerous upgrades to various mechanical parts.

The F-20's avionics suite was all-new and greatly improved over the earlier designs. The General Electric AN/APG-67 multi-mode radar was the heart of the sensor suite, offering a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. The F-5's electro-mechanical navigation system was replaced with an all-electronic version based on a ring laser gyroscope. Time from power-on to takeoff was greatly reduced as a result, to about 22 seconds, and Northrop boasted that the aircraft had the shortest scramble time of any contemporary aircraft. The cockpit of the F-5 was completely re-worked with a large head-up display (HUD) and two monochrome multi-function displays set high on the control panel, and the addition of a complete hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) control system. Many of the avionics promised to have reliability beyond that of any competing aircraft then in service.

The F-20 would have been able to use most of the common weapons in U.S.'s inventory, including the entire range of Mark 80 series bombs, the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles, and the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles. Like the earlier F-5s, the test F-20s were equipped with two M39 cannon mounted in the nose. Production F-20s may have substituted two Ford Aerospace Tigerclaw cannons instead of the M39s; while the Tigerclaw was based on the M39, it was lighter and had a higher rate of fire than the M39A2.

The F-20 did, however, have several problems inherent to its small size. The low-mounted wing meant that there was limited ground clearance, and the position of the landing gear meant loads had to be positioned towards the outer ends of the wings. This limited hard point weights to 1,000 lb (454 kg). A single hard point under the fuselage could carry more, a single Mk 84 2,000 lbs bomb or up to five Mk 82 500 lbs bombs. Additionally, although the wing profiling improved lift at higher angles of attack (AoA) while maneuvering, it did not improve cruise lift performance at normal AoA. This did not present a problem in the fighter role, but did severely reduce its payload and range figures compared to similar aircraft like the F-16.

The F-20 was significantly more expensive than the previous generation F-5E. Among its Teen Series contemporaries, however, the F-20 was offered as a low-cost option; cost-wise it was estimated in 1983 that the unit fly-away cost of the F-20 (based on a 150-unit buy) was \$10.7 million, compared to the F-16/79 at \$11 million and the F-16A at \$12.4 million. Unit life-cycle costs for the F-20 estimated as high as 40–50% lower than for the F-16. Another estimate of the F-20's costs found it less expensive than other designs like the \$30 million F-15 Eagle, or \$15 million F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F-20 was projected to consume 53% less fuel, to require 52% less maintenance manpower, to have 63% lower operating and maintenance costs and to be four times more reliable than average front-line designs of the era. The F-20 also offered the ability to fire the beyond-visual-range AIM-7 Sparrow missile, a capability that the F-16 lacked at that time, and did not gain until the F-16A/B Block 15 ADF version in February 1989.

## Operational history

### Testing

On 30 August 1982, the original engine-change-only F-5G (serial 82-0062, c/n GG1001, registered N4416T) made its maiden flight piloted by Russ Scott. During the 40-minute flight, the prototype climbed to 40,000 ft (12,000 m) and reached Mach 1.04. GG1001 demonstrated outstanding reliability; by the end of April 1983 240 flights had been accumulated, including evaluation flights with 10 potential customer nations. The second prototype (serial number 82-0063, registered N3986B, c/n GI1001), featuring the complete avionics suite, made its first flight on 26 August 1983. The F-20 flew 1,500 flights prior to its termination; although these were exclusively flown in ideal conditions. According to the Rand Corporation, "Northrop did not take a prototype approach with the F-20... The first F-20 was intended to be a production quality aircraft..."

During the test program, the F-20 fired the AIM-9 Sidewinder and, in February 1985 the AIM-7 Sparrow. In air-to-ground testing, it fired the AGM-65 Maverick, 2.75 in (70 mm) folding fin aerial rockets, dropped Mk. 82 bombs, and fired rounds from a 30 mm (1.18 in) gun pod (GPU-5/A, four-barrel GAU-13/A) in addition to the two internal 20 mm (.79 in) M39 cannon. One of the F-20's flight characteristics was the ability to fly at only 124 km/h (77 mph) at 35° AoA (angle of attack), while the F-16 was limited to 30°; acceleration from Mach 0.9 to 1.2 in 29 seconds (at 9,150 m); climb to 12,200 m (or 40,000 ft) in 2.3 minutes (including 55 sec for the start and 22 for the INS set-up).

Northrop signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Air Force in May 1983 that made the Air Force responsible for certifying the F-20's performance, air worthiness and fixed-price program. Aerospace legend Chuck Yeager, employed as a spokesperson for Northrop, touted the aircraft as "magnificent" and was featured in advertising.

In November 1982, Bahrain became the first customer. South Korea also explored local production of the F-20, and in support improvements were implemented. These included avionics upgrades, an expanded fuel tank, and the use of fibreglass composites. The changes were so extensive that a fourth prototype was built to test them. By 1983, Northrop was involved in a number of simultaneous negotiations for the F-20, and its prospects appeared positive.

On 10 October 1984, GG1001 crashed in South Korea on a demonstration flight, killing Northrop pilot Darrell Cornell. An investigation cleared the F-20 of mechanical or design faults; it concluded Cornell had blacked out due to excessive g-forces. GI1001 crashed in May 1985 at Goose Bay, Labrador, killing Northrop pilot Dave Barnes. Again the crash was blamed on G-LOC; Barnes had been practicing his aerobatic routine for the Paris Air Show.

### Battle for sales

In December 1981, President Reagan, reacting to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, signed a major economic and military aid package for Pakistan that included 40 F-16As. The offer was in keeping with U.S. policy towards the Soviet Union, and the idea of "containment" within a ring of U.S.-friendly countries. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was initially viewed as an attempt to break out of the arranged containment system, thus the U.S. placed a priority on quickly building up a new layer of defense. However, other U.S. allies saw this as a potential break in the FX policy, and began requesting only "the very best."

Such approval was increasingly granted starting in 1982. In May, Venezuela, who had long examined the FX project, agreed to buy 18 F-16As and six F-16Bs, replacing a fleet of Mirage III interceptors and Mirage 5 ground-attack aircraft. Sweden decided to develop their own design, the JAS 39 Gripen. In September 1983, Turkey announced plans to buy 132 F-16Cs and 28 F-16Ds to replace their Lockheed F-104G/S Starfighter and Northrop F-5A/B. Greece, stung by its long-time rival receiving the F-16, purchased 34 F-16C and six F-16Ds in November 1984, giving a firm pledge of secrecy.

Then, late in 1983, the U.S. government made a financial commitment to help Israel develop its own new fighter, the IAI Lavi. Northrop objected to this, as the Lavi would be a potential competitor to the F-20 in the export market; while Northrop had to privately fund the F-20, the government was directly subsidizing a foreign competitor. Congressional support for Israel overruled Northrop's complaints along with complaints from other branches of the government.

While other companies marketed directly to foreign air forces, as part of the FX program, the F-20 could only be marketed by the State Department. Under this policy umbrella, Northrop had to submit every piece of marketing material to government review, which could take months. The State Department had no interest in selling the FX; from its perspective it was one aircraft among many, leading to a lackadaisical approach, and led to complaints from Northrop that the government was not promoting the F-20 enough.

### Congressional investigation

Starting in March 1984, Congress chaired a series of hearings into FX. William Schneider, Jr., the Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology, testified that FX policy might not result in any sales, in spite of any government support. He stated that the sales of arms such as FX was primarily a matter of foreign policy, secondarily a commercial venture. Thomas V. Jones, Northrop's CEO, argued that there was little point independently developing aircraft if companies were reliant on the government to sell them. He suggested the FX policy be dropped, and F-20 allowed to be sold by the vendor. Additionally, Brigadier General Thomas Baker, USAF Director of International Programs, testified that the Air Force was not actively marketing FX. He observed that over four years the US had sold 100 fighters to 29 countries, none were FX. He also compared France's aircraft exports, showing a market for a low-cost fighter existed. In the Committee's concluding remarks, the State Department and DOD were accused of rhetoric, and lacking support, on FX.

In April 1984, after the Congressional hearings, the USAF was directed to promote FX actively. Several potential customers were briefed during May and June 1984 on the performance and cost of both the F-20 and F-16/79. The Air Force published an internal report on FX in late June 1984. The F-20 was characterized as having outstanding performance against viable threats; and seen as a candidate for the Air Force's aggressor requirement. The report additionally stated that the F-20 had been contractor-funded, totaling over \$750 million, compared to \$60 million on the F-16/79. However, the report concluded that it had little or no market to sell to.

### Aggressor and Air National Guard roles

A possibility for a U.S. purchase opened in 1984, for a small number of "aggressor aircraft" for dissimilar air combat training. In November 1984, Congress directed the Air Force and Navy to study the use of a single aircraft type to fill similar aggressor roles for both services. In January 1985 the Navy announced they had selected a specially configured version of the F-16. It was rumored that the aircraft was sold at a loss to keep Northrop's F-20 out of the market.

Another chance for the F-20 was as an upgrade for the Air National Guard (ANG). Northrop claimed that the F-20's fast scramble time made it a natural fit for this role, its lower cost would allow the ANG to operate larger aircraft numbers, and that it supported the AIM-7 while the F-16 did not. However, the Air Force's requirements had priorities favoring the F-16 for the role; if the ANG flew the F-16, they would further lower unit costs, maintain commonality between the ANG and Regular Air Force, and better equip ANG units to perform front line combat roles. The Congressional Budget Office had also disputed Northrop's lower cost claim in their own research. On 31 October 1986, the Air Force announced that the F-16C had been selected, which had been upgraded to support the AIM-7. As several nations had suggested they would accept the F-20 on the condition that it was inducted into the USAF, the selection was a heavy blow to Northrop.

### Cancellation

After six years with no buyers, in late 1986 Northrop canceled the \$1.2 billion project. Northrop was reluctant to protest perceived favoritism of the F-16 in fear of losing support for the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber project. Ongoing negotiations with the Royal Moroccan Air Force for 20 F-20s were canceled; along with the small order by Bahrain. Later on, a bribery scandal would emerge from the attempts to market the F-20 to South Korea, leading to several Northrop managers resigning and the reprimanding of chief executive Thomas V. Jones, who retired in 1989.

In the late 1980s, local production of the F-20 was discussed with India. A move was also made in the 1980s to market the aircraft to the Pakistan Air Force with a license production manufacture of the aircraft. It was evaluated by a Pakistani contingent in the United States, with the F-20 being flown by Abbas Mirza, a senior Pakistani Air Force fighter pilot. Of the components of the F-20, the radar would end up being the most successful; Taiwan selected it for the Ching-kuo, South Korea also adopted it for the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle trainer aircraft. As sales prospects were not apparent early on, GE sold their radar division, which was eventually acquired by Lockheed Martin.

Aviation author Steve Pace wrote of the F-20 as "one of the best fighters that never went into production." While discussing military procurement, Thomas McNaugher stated that competition between the F-20 and the F-16 served to lower prices and generate "massive savings" for the U.S. government. Writing prior to cancellation, Ralph Nader and William Taylor noted that the F-20 had been commonly described as "the first privately funded U.S. combat aircraft in recent history." Mazher A. Hameed commented in 1986 that the F-20 was a "logical choice" for the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia; however, it had "scant chance of being selected" due to political factors, as well as competition from other candidates such as the Mirage 2000 and Panavia Tornado ADV.

## Aircraft disposition

- 82-0062 (Northrop serial number GG.1001) – crashed at Suwon Air Base, South Korea on 10 October 1984. Pilot killed.
- 82-0063 (Northrop serial number GI.1001) – crashed at CFB Goose Bay, Canada on 14 May 1985. Pilot killed.
- 82-0064 (Northrop serial number GI.1002) – California Science Center in Exposition Park, Los Angeles, California.

## Specifications (F-20)

## See also

Prototype fighter aircraft developed from F-5

Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United States


Tropical Storm Thelma

Tropical Storm Thelma, known in the Philippines as Tropical Storm Uring, was one of the deadliest tropical cyclones in Philippine history, killing at least 5,081 people. Forming out of a tropical disturbance on November 1, 1991, several hundred kilometers north-northeast of Palau, the depression that would become Thelma tracked generally westward. After turning southwestward in response to a cold front, the system intensified into a tropical storm on November 4 as it approached the Philippines. Hours before moving over the Visayas, Thelma attained its peak intensity with estimated ten-minute sustained winds of 75 km/h (45 mph) and a barometric pressure of 992 mbar (hPa; 29.29 inHg). Despite moving over land, the system weakened only slightly, emerging over the South China Sea on November 6 while retaining gale-force winds. Thelma ultimately succumbed to wind shear and degraded to a tropical depression. On November 8, the depression made landfall in Southern Vietnam before dissipating hours later.

While passing over the Philippines, Thelma's interaction with the high terrain of some of the islands resulted in torrential rainfall. Through the process of orographic lift, much of the Visayas received 150 mm (6 in) of rain; however, on Leyte Island there was a localized downpour that brought totals to 580.5 mm (22.85 in). With the majority of this falling in a three-hour span, an unprecedented flash flood took place on the island. Much of the land had been deforestated or poorly cultivated and was unable to absorb most of the rain, creating a large runoff. This water overwhelmed the Anilao–Malbasag watershed and rushed downstream. Ormoc City, located past where the Anilao and Malbasag rivers converge, suffered the brunt of the flood. In just three hours, the city was devastated with thousands of homes damaged or destroyed. A total of 4,922 people were killed in the city alone, with 2,300 perishing along the riverbank.

Outside of Ormoc City, 159 people were killed across Leyte and Negros Occidental. Throughout the country, at least 5,081 people lost their lives while another 1,941–3,084 were missing and presumed dead. This made Thelma the deadliest tropical cyclone in Philippine history, surpassing a storm in 1867 that killed 1,800, until later surpassed by Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) in 2013 which killed at least 6,300 people. A total of 4,446 homes were destroyed while another 22,229 were damaged. Total losses amounted to \$27.67 million. Initially, it took over 24 hours for word of the disaster to reach officials due to a crippled communication network around Ormoc City. Within a few days, emergency supply centers were established and aid from various agencies under the United Nations and several countries flowed into the country. A total of \$5.8 million worth of grants and materials was provided collectively in the international relief effort.

## Meteorological history

In late October 1991, a tropical disturbance developed near the Caroline Islands. Tracking generally west-northwestward, the system gradually became more defined. On October 31, convection associated with the system quickly increased, prompting the issuance of a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC). Early on November 1, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) began monitoring the system as a tropical depression, at which time the system was situated roughly 415 km (258 mi) north-northeast of Palau. Following a satellite-derived surface wind estimate of 45 km/h (30 mph) later that day, the JTWC also began monitoring the low as a tropical depression. Initially, forecast models showed the system continuing on an arcing path out to sea; however, the system turned westward on November 2 and threatened the Philippines. Due to the cyclone's proximity to the country, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration also monitored the storm and assigned it with the local name Uring. Late on November 3, the depression turned west-southwestward towards the Visayas in response to an approaching cold front, an event typical of late-season cyclones in the basin. On November 4, both the JTWC and JMA upgraded the system to a tropical storm, with the former assigning it as Thelma.

Hours before striking the Philippines on November 4, both agencies reported Thelma to have reached its peak intensity. The JTWC estimated the storm to have attained one-minute sustained winds of 85 km/h (55 mph) while the JMA estimated ten-minute sustained winds at 75 km/h (45 mph). Additionally, its barometric pressure reached 992 mbar (hPa; 29.29 inHg). Thelma soon made landfall in Samar before weakening to a minimal tropical storm. Maintaining gale-force winds, the system eventually passed over Palawan Island on November 6 before moving over the South China Sea. Despite being back over water, strong wind shear prevented re-intensification and caused Thelma to weaken to a tropical depression by November 7. Now moving westward, the depression eventually made its final landfall over the Mekong River Delta in Southern Vietnam on November 8. Over the next couple of days the system weakened into an area of low pressure as it moved westwards, before it moved into the Andaman Sea during November 10. Once in the Andaman Sea, the systems remnants contributed to the formation of the Karaikal tropical cyclone during the next day.

## Impact

Tropical Storm Thelma struck the Philippines just five months after the Ultra-Plinian eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The eruption resulted in the deaths of roughly 800 people and left nearly 1 million homeless. The country's government was reportedly struggling to deal with the scope of the disaster and the addition of Thelma worsened the situation.

Striking the nation as a weak tropical storm, winds from Thelma gusted up to 95 km/h (60 mph) in Tacloban; these winds caused no known damage. The main destructive force associated with the cyclone was the tremendous rainfall it produced. More than 150 mm (6 in) of rain across much of the Visayas, resulting in widespread flooding. In Tacloban, 140.2 mm (5.52 in) fell over a 24‐hour span. The heaviest rain occurred on Leyte Island due to orographic lift, which brought large quantities of moisture into the atmosphere over a relatively small area. Additionally, monsoonal winds to the southwest of Thelma converged over the island, further enhancing the precipitation. Near the city of Ormoc, a Philippine National Oil Company rain gauge measured 580.5 mm (22.85 in) of precipitation, the highest in relation to the storm. Of this, approximately 500 mm (20 in) fell during a three-hour span around noon local time on November 5. Initially, residents believed that waterspouts transported tremendous amounts of water to the island, triggering the floods. This notion was quickly dismissed as improbable, however.

The hardest hit region was Leyte, where more than 4,000 people lost their lives. A total of 4,446 homes were destroyed while another 22,229 were damaged. The majority of casualties and damage took place in Ormoc when a flash flood devastated the city. At least 81 people were killed outside Ormoc and another 14 went missing; 42 lost their lives in Burauen. The entire island of Leyte was left without power and many areas were isolated as roads were washed away. Another 78 people perished and 70 others were left missing in Negros Occidental. Losses from the storm amounted to \$27.67 million; \$18.94 million in Leyte and \$8.73 million in Negros Occidental. A total of 598,454 people were affected while an estimated 43,000 people were left homeless by the storm across the Philippines.

### Ormoc City tragedy

The greatest tragedy during Tropical Storm Thelma took place in the city of Ormoc after torrential rains overwhelmed the Anilao–Malbasag watershed, sending flood waters rushing down the deforested mountainside. This water flowed into the Anilao and Malbasag rivers, located north of Ormoc. The watershed, covering an area of 4,567 hectares (11,285 acres), is only 3.3 percent forested, with the remainder being used for agricultural and private purposes. According to a study in 1990, roughly 90 percent of the watershed had been converted into coconut and sugarcane plantations. The majority of this land was improperly cultivated since the 1970s, making conditions worse than they normally would have been. The natural structure of the mountains further contributed to the floods, with slopes as steep as 60 percent grade in some areas. In heavy rain events, this feature leaves the upper two-thirds of the mountain range unstable. In the two hours prior to the heaviest rains, the soil in the watershed became saturated, greatly lessening its effectiveness at absorbing further rains. As a result, the tremendous rains that occurred just prior to the flood, during which rainfall rates reached 167 mm (6.6 in) per hour, the land was unable to absorb a majority of the rain. Many landslides ranging from 1 to 3 m (3.3 to 9.8 ft) deep and 50 to 100 m (160 to 330 ft) wide occurred across the region. Altogether, rains were twice as heavy as the land could handle and the many landslips doubled the volume of fluids. At various points along rivers, temporary dams created by debris, namely trees, allowed a build up of water upstream. In some instances, waters reached a depth of 10 m (33 ft) before the dams collapsed. Normally, it takes water in the Anilao and Malbasag rivers roughly 3.6 and 5.6 days, respectively, to reach Ormoc City; however, it only took one hour during the flood.

Ormoc City itself is located in a flood-prone area, with the Anilao and Malbasag rivers converging just north of the city and taking a 90-degree turn towards the bay. In addition to the natural dangers of the river, poorly designed structures on the river made conditions worse. The majority of construction along the river did not take flooding threats into account, and actually increased the threat of these events. Concrete walls and levees were built into the river rather than on the banks, leading to faster debris damming. Lastly, just after the turn was the Cogon Bridge. This structure constricted the river by as much as 50 percent, enhancing the build up of water. The turn became the final trigger in the disaster as it created an "instantaneous backwater effect," causing massive volumes of water to over-top the riverbank. Around 11:00 a.m. local time on November 5, approximately 22,835 km3 (5,478 cu mi) of water inundated 25 km2 (9.7 sq mi) of the city. In just 15 minutes, the water rose by 2.1 m (7 ft) and further rose to 3.7 m (12 ft) within an hour. The flooding lasted for roughly three hours, leaving up to 0.6 m (2.0 ft) of sediment behind.

The flood struck the city with little to no warning, catching all those in its path off-guard. Numerous low-income families lived along the banks of the river, despite being such a high-risk area. Residential and commercial areas were also set up along reclaimed embankments that restricted river flow. Additionally, squatters were allowed to live along the banks of the Anilao river in an area called Isle Verde. Roughly 2,500 people lived on this reclaimed land prior to the flood. The majority of fatalities took place along the banks of the river, with most drowning or being buried in mud or debris. A survivor described the initial event as a gigantic wave crashing over the banks and flooding the city. Isle Verde was virtually wiped out and out of the original 2,500 people that lived there, only 200 survived. It became known as the "Isle of Death" to survivors. Residents reported hundreds of bodies floating down rivers in the area. The force of the water and mud was enough to crack the walls of city hall. Nearly 3,000 homes were destroyed and more than 11,000 others were damaged. In the city alone, officials confirmed that 4,922 people were killed and another 1,857–3,000 were left missing. Additionally, 3,020 people were injured. The majority of those missing were likely swept out to sea by the flood and presumed dead. Two days after the storm, several bodies of those swept out to sea washed back ashore. Officials stated that the death toll could have been in the tens of thousands had the flood occurred at night rather than in the middle of the day.

## Aftermath

Initially, it took more than 24 hours for word of the level of devastation to reach officials in Manila as communications across Leyte were largely destroyed. By November 7, search and rescue operations were underway across Leyte and Negros Occidental. The first shipment of relief supplies, consisting of food rations, rice, sardines, and used clothing, was to be shipped from Cebu later that day. On November 8, Philippine President Corazon Aquino declared all of Leyte a disaster area. A Philippine Navy vessel set out with heavy earth-moving machinery and the Philippine Air Force deployed aircraft to assist in rescue efforts. Relief efforts in Ormoc City were hampered by a lack of clear roads and fuel. Amateur radio reports stated that an AC-130 was able to land at a local airport but materials had to be moved by helicopter from there since roads were blocked. Relief efforts were also hampered by continuing rains and the rough terrain of the affected region. By November 11, approximately 8,300 families had been rescued and another 7,521 were evacuated from affected regions.

Supply distribution centers were established in Ormoc, providing residents with food, water, and materials, by November 11. People were given a can of sardines and 1 kg (2.2 lb) of rice at these centers. These centers were only able to operate in daylight though due to a lack of fuel and transportation. Water was supplied in limited quantities from Cebu. Medical and sanitation teams were deployed throughout the province, with many coming from surrounding areas. Residents searched through debris for lumber to construct makeshift coffins while others stacked bodies to be picked up by wheelbarrows or trucks. Officials had difficulty determining how to best deal with mass casualties as bodies lay across the Ormoc region. Many were found in the coastal barangays of Linao, Camp Downes, and Bantigue as well as the Ormoc pier. In order to prevent the spread of disease, mass graves were dug, with 700 bodies buried on November 8. Dump trucks were used to transport the dead to these sites as quickly as possible. As decomposition set in, residents stated that "[the] putrid smell was unbearable." Even months after the storm, bodies were occasionally discovered, some found in drainage systems. By November 10, four navy vessels were searching debris in the waters near Ormoc for bodies; 16 were recovered that day with more believed to be submerged in the bay. Roads surrounding the city were finally cleared by November 12; however, electricity remained out. With the deployment of medical teams from Japan, hospitals in the region returned to full capacity. By November 22, electricity and water had been 70 percent and 60 percent restored, respectively. The emergency phase of assistance ended on November 29 and coordination of disaster relief was returned to the Philippines. By that time, national aid to Ormoc reached \$1.1 million, with more than half coming from a presidential grant.

On November 7, despite no official appeal for international aid, the governments of France and the United States provided \$34,783 and \$25,000 in funds. The request for assistance came the following day, with the Philippines requesting food, water, medicine, emergency supplies, and heavy machinery. A team from the United Nations Disaster Relief Organization, specializing with relief coordination and flood management, was also sent. The Red Cross appealed for \$418,000 to support 15,000 families for one month. A cash grant of \$17,300 from the United Kingdom was received on November 8. Two United States Air Force AC-130s from Subic bay naval base flew to Cebu carrying ready-to-eat meals. International funding reached \$2.5 million on November 12, with grants of \$1.05 million, \$1 million, \$188,000 from the Netherlands, Japan, and Australia respectively. Additionally, the United States provided 55,000 packages of food rations. This total nearly doubled two days later with grants from the United Nations Development Programme, World Food Programme, World Vision International, Médecins Sans Frontières, Caritas, various branches of the Red Cross, and the governments of Canada and New Zealand. Ultimately, approximately \$5.8 million was provided in international assistance from 13 nations, the United Nations, the Red Cross, and various non-governmental organizations.

Isle Verde, where approximately 2,300 people were killed, was declared uninhabitable by officials; however, residents still returned to the area due to a need for land. Eventually, signs that used to warn people not to stay on the islet were eventually taken down and people were no longer warned not to live there. A resettlement community was constructed months later, with plans to house 912 of the 2,668 families that needed to be moved from the area. Those that were not moved were left on Isle Verde despite orders not to stay there. Another resettlement project for 700 families was planned at the cost of \$1 million.

The sheer magnitude of the flood event in the Anilao–Malbasag watershed made the region more vulnerable to future flood events. Hillsides became more unstable and the rivers themselves were clogged with debris, raising their water levels and widening their banks. In a post-disaster assessment in October 1992, it was stated that swift cooperation of all agencies from local to governmental was necessary to prevent tragedies of similar caliber in the future. It was urged that residents still living along the river banks be relocated to safer areas; however, by the time of the report, people had already begun repopulating the area. As a way of avoiding similar breaching of the riverbank, it was suggested that the two rivers be dredged and possibly re-channeled. Several points were also brought up about rehabilitating the landscape of the watershed: reforestation, contoured farming, and redesigning of plantations to better retain rainwater. Long-term rehabilitation of the watershed was deemed necessary in addition to repairing infrastructure in Ormoc.

In 1993, following a request by the Philippine Government, the Japan International Cooperation Agency conducted as study on flood control for Ormoc and other cities across the country. In 1998, an ₱800 million (US\$20.6 million) construction project for flood mitigation was approved and later completed in 2001. That year, Tropical Depression Auring caused flooding of similar magnitude to Thelma; however, the waters were properly diverted to the sea. A sculpture and monument to the victims, designed by architect Maribeth Ebcas and artist Florence Cinco respectively, called "Gift of Life" was constructed on a 1.3 km2 (0.50 sq mi) plot of land. It was designed to also depict a need to respect nature and be a message of hope for residents in Ormoc.

Due to the catastrophic loss of life caused by the storm, the name Thelma was retired and replaced with Teresa.

## See also

- List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA)
- Typhoons in the Philippines
- 2006 Southern Leyte mudslide
- Other Philippine tropical cyclones that have claimed more than 1,000 lives
  - Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda, 2013)
  - Typhoon Bopha (Pablo, 2012)
  - Tropical Storm Washi (Sendong, 2011)
  - Typhoon Fengshen (Frank, 2008)
  - Typhoon Durian (Reming, 2006)
  - Tropical Depression Winnie, 2004
  - Typhoon Angela (Rosing, 1995)
  - Typhoon Ike (Nitang, 1984)
- Other disasters that took place in the Philippines around the time of Thelma
  - 1990 Luzon earthquake
  - Typhoon Mike (Ruping, 1990)
  - Typhoon Yunya (Diding, 1991)
  - Eruption of Mount Pinatubo

Pacific tropical storm in 1991