Works great in an F-4 or F-111 with 75 lb/sq ft wing loading hitting the break at 350 or so, but not so good in a light single GA plane, even an RV. Try that "high bank/high-g" break at 150 knots in an airplane with like 20 lb/sq ft wing loading, and when you turn base, you'll need a split-S to the runway.
That takes more time and space in the pattern. If you arrive in the break, pitch to the downwind, and land as a formation, a 4-ship can get on the ground in about the same or less time and space as two individual planes. If the pattern is busy, that's good for everyone.
...but it is the break the USAF uses with high performance tactical jet aircraft like the F-4's and F-111's I was in. It's just not a good thing in a 150-knot light plane.
Ed, you may have done some formation flying, but your post suggests you never received any formal training in leading a formation from a qualified instructor. What you wrote is simply wrong.
That would be about 45 degrees of bank, but you'd have to ease that if you decelerate coming around the corner to maintain a constant radius. If not, hitting the abeam position at 150 KIAS is going to make an interesting approach in an airplane that clean. In the Grumman formation community, we do 35 degrees of bank (1.2g) at 110 KIAS in order to keep the downwind wide enough that we can make a reasonable base-final turn at 75-90 KIAS, then decelerate after rolling out on downwind.
Because with the TD conversion, they're a real female canine when the wheels are on the ground -- very short coupled, main wheels way forward. They'll swap ends on a whim with very little warning. You really have to be a good TD pilot on your A-game to handle them.
"Brags" is the operative word. 140, yes, but not 150. And I know for a fact that even with a 160 HP engine, it will only do 163 KTAS.
Given that the wheel track is about 80-90", that's quite a trick.
You build up to it. Start with an easy TD, then move to something trickier, and finally to the trickiest.
Most of the engine upgrade STC's include a GW increase equal to the extra weight of the larger engine, resulting in no change in useful load. Some don't. Shop carefully.
You can keep the same range if you throttle back, but if you want to go fast, yes, there is a range penalty. There's also an STC for aux tanks giving an addition 10 gallons of fuel. That gives you more range/payload flexibility. But if you really want more range, payload and speed, you'd do better to trade up to a Tiger.
That sounds like the O-290 engine, the STC for which doesn't include a GW increase, so there's a significant useful load penalty. Not a good choice, and unsurprisingly, not very popular.
I don't think I've every flown downwind over a mile from the runway, whether I was in a C-150 or a Bonanza. Not because I wanted to be able to glide to the runway (I'm not always within gliding distance of a runway when flying cross country either), but because strung-out patterns introduce problems of their own.
Nope. Just that you don't seem to have a clue how to lead a formation flight. Breaking up a flight of four (no less six) outside the pattern for individual straight-ins is a good way to create havoc with traffic in the pattern. The assumption that the other aircraft can and will just extend out to follow six airplanes on final is naive. First, it would take anyone already on downwind out quite a few miles. Second, despite the fact that we're supposed to look for aircraft on final before turning base, it's likely that a no-radio aircraft on downwind would have no idea there were that many pearls on the inbound string, and turn itself into the middle of the group, creating issues for everyone in front of whom he turned. Third, "dragging" six airplanes into trail takes a lot of space and requires being set up on final a long way out. Finally, contrary to what you said ("less time in the airport environment" for the trail straight in), taking the formation to the overhead and landing as a flight with minimum trail gets all the planes on the ground the fastest and with the smallest break in the flow of other traffic.
Personally, I think nm when "miles" is stated (other than ground vis), but perhaps others don't.
If you're midfield downwind, an immediate turn will put you over the middle of the runway when you roll out, not over the approach end. Depending on runway length, that might be a problem. In any event, turn radius will extend that 1.5 sm straight-line distance to the runway into a flight path far longer than the 9000 feet or so of glide distance you have unless you rack it around, and then you'll lose a bunch of glide distance.
Agreed.
That's a skinny strip of pavement..
That was Ed's idea, not mine.
For the reasons I and others said -- clobbers the pattern and creates more risk of the former formation members banging into each other as they all try to enter the pattern at the same time from the same direction.
What risk? If done right, there is no more risk than a single aircraft entering the pattern. The problems occur when folks who don't know what they're doing attempt to fly formation.
I know quite a few big-engine Yankee owners, and that's generally true. Which is why I suggested that if someone was concerned about range and payload, they should go for a Tiger instead.
Agreed.
I agree, but a properly executed formation entry to the overhead in a light GA airplane does not involve "roaring" or "weird acro." Even fighter/attack aircraft slow up well below cruise speed for the break. IIRC, at the ship it was only 250 knots, and in the USAF 300-350 in fighters which normally cruised around 500.
I think the problem is more that formation flying looks a lot simpler and easier than it is, and there are hidden perils that the unaware discover only when it is too late to avoid disaster. That's why I strongly encourage folks interested in trying it to a) get proper formation training from qualified people, and b) not to try it at all until they get that training. If you do a formation arrival right, there should be no disburbance to the rest of the traffic, but the folks who don't know what they're doing give the trained formation community a bad name.
High and acute is doubly the wrong place for wingie to be, and if lead turns into the wingman in that position (as seems to be happening here), it can be fatal. That's how the Vultures met their demise.+1..
Here's a picture of a Cj and an RV-8. Probably the wrong thread for this, but it is still food for thought.
Guess who's dead..
I suppose you could say the same thing about all light GA recreational flying, including what you do. But for those I know who do formation flying, it's a chance to hone their aviation skills with a highly challenging form of flying demanding study, training, and discipline, and which gives them great satisfaction. YMMV.
