Flying an non-IFR certified aircraft legally in IMC?

TriGear28 said:
Ok. I let it go as long as i could possibly hold it in. WTF? If a person even has to ask a question so odd, so severe. The ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY No! regardless Of the reason, it only stands as as an example of a person who has no ifr experience. If they had,why kill yourself and make the rest of us responsible pilots suffer more restrictions as a result of your stupidity?


I really want this to go on record as quite possibly one of the most dangerous and irresponsible questions i have ever heard of!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

No offence but it is very clear that you have no formation experience at all. For future references, please don't post unless you are familiar with the topic.
 
Last edited:
I don't think asking a question about a subject that the person is genuinely interested in needs any justification.

Not liking the answers, now that's another issue!
 
Mike I said:
In the video, there's no attempt to remain VFR in IMC. They're in solid IMC until encountering cumulogranite and bushes. It's a demonstration of false confidence in the nav equipment on board and blindly following the pilot of the L39. Quite relevant.
Click to expand...
Dissimilar formation in IMC with a light piston single and a tactical jet? YGBSM, even in good VMC. One of the worst experiences I ever had was a formation flight with a Navy A-7 leading our ANG RF-4C (we started out with an unplanned/unexpected lead change halfway down the runway and it went downhill from there), and that wasn't nearly as "dissimilar" as the lunacy in that video. Not saying that IMC formation ops are something every light plane pilot should try, or that there aren't additional risks over VMC formation or single-ship IMC, but if done in similar aircraft with properly trained and qualified pilots, the risk is manageable.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Dissimilar formation in IMC with a light piston single and a tactical jet? YGBSM, even in good VMC. One of the worst experiences I ever had was a formation flight with a Navy A-7 leading our ANG RF-4C (we started out with an unplanned/unexpected lead change halfway down the runway and it went downhill from there), and that wasn't nearly as "dissimilar" as the lunacy in that video. Not saying that IMC formation ops are something every light plane pilot should try, or that there aren't additional risks over VMC formation or single-ship IMC, but if done in similar aircraft with properly trained and qualified pilots, the risk is manageable.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, what's a problem with flying an A-7 and F-4 in formation?
I'm familiar with the difficulties of flying different aircraft in formation (especially if the speed and size difference is significant), but I'd think that an A-7 & F-4 are similar enough to fly in formation without major problems (caused by the dissimilar aircraft).
 
Machfly it sounds like you guys are doing formation flying at your field without any official training. I would highly recommend if your taking part in that to stop immediately and attend some formal class (FAST) before continuing.

Flying formation entails intricate planning and briefing. Its not just flying off a wing. I've flown thousands of formation hours in the Army and everything is covered from start up to taxiing back into parking. Formation type, angle, distance, altitude, speed and pilot duties. Then you cover contingencies such as loss of visual, IIMC (helos), mechanical emergencies or downed aircraft procedures (peacetime). Everything has code words and phrases to keep frequency congestion to a minimum. We even use light signals (anticollision or NAV) as a way of communicating. Of course all that is the basics, combat adds a whole seperate process to the brief.

Ron brought up dissimilar aircraft. I'm sure he'll cover performance differences so I won't hit that. My primary problem with dissimilar aircraft isn't the performance, it's the unknown on pilot experience / SOP. If you read the other thread (A Story) on the Key West crash you'd see what happens when a lack of common SOP and communication can do. I don't fly in formation with anyone that I don't know about their training or SOP. Example, last year I was tasked (EMS) to fly a dissimilar formation (B407, EC-135) for a funeral flyover. I didn't care about the dissimilar performance but I did care about the fact the EC-135 guy only had 45 mins of previous formation time. No way, no way I'm letting someone fly behind me with that experience so I told him he was flight lead. Of course with little experience his flight brief was pretty rudimentary. If it was me and one of my former military buds, we would have briefed it in detail and from the ground you would've seen a difference.

As indicated in the F-4 example above even the military guys screw it up and they do it on a regular basis. If you're going out and "winging it" your just adding even more of a risk to something that already has a level of risk to it. I assure you that if you attend a FAST class or one of the other formation classes taught around the country, formation flying will be a much safer and enjoyable experience for all involved.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
If you don't mind me asking, what's a problem with flying an A-7 and F-4 in formation?
I'm familiar with the difficulties of flying different aircraft in formation (especially if the speed and size difference is significant), but I'd think that an A-7 & F-4 are similar enough to fly in formation without major problems (caused by the dissimilar aircraft).
Click to expand...

Probably pretty different characteristics. It can be a challenge to be a smooth platform for a wingman to fly off of through IMC even in the same airplane. Suck a little too much power off in a descent, and he has nowhere to go but forward, or down and blind into the clouds.....as an example. So you can probably see where 2 aircraft with wildly different aerodynamics, engine response, drag in all configurations, etc could really factor into that. It isn't really a big deal if you are flying loose/tactical formation at an airpeed both your aircraft are comfortable at, but it gets real hairy when you are the faster jet trying to fly form off the slow(er) guy. Back to the similar formation example, it is also easy to make a wingman uncomfortably slow when in parade/close formation in the landing configuration if you have different fuel loads (gross weight split). If the flight lead has burned more gas, his approach speed is slower, and the wingman who is trying to hang on is probably full slow on the AoA indexer if not worse....at least if there is a big enough fuel split (maybe a thousand lbs or more in the Hornet specifically). Just some "whys" to consider...
 
MachFly said:
If you don't mind me asking, what's a problem with flying an A-7 and F-4 in formation?
Click to expand...
Total mismatch of thrust-drag and operating speeds. Among other things, the power/weight ratio of the F-4 is way higher, the A-7 has a high (for a fighter) bypass turbofan and the F-4 has an afterburning turbojet with totally different engine response. The A-7 climbs at 250, while the F-4 is best at 350. And on, and on...
I'm familiar with the difficulties of flying different aircraft in formation (especially if the speed and size difference is significant), but I'd think that an A-7 & F-4 are similar enough to fly in formation without major problems (caused by the dissimilar aircraft).
Click to expand...
I guess you've never tried it in tactical jets like that.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
No offence but it is very clear that you have no formation experience at all. For future references, please don't post unless you are familiar with the topic.
Click to expand...

No offense but if you had any ifr training you would know not to ever take off from an airport in ifr conditions without the ability to immediately return to that same airport if anything goes wrong. Kind of hard to program a return approach into equipment that doesn't exist or has failed.

My point is I've never heard a pilot key the mic and request permission to commit suicide.

Not to mention the FAA does not have the capacity to care for pilot induced emergencies. Their gratitude will not be extended after the fact. There is a category for these kinds of accidents. Its called lack of proper ADM. The FAA is currently looking at changing regulations just to find such errors in judgment prior to certification as a result.

I am sure no specific regulation exists for the exact situation involved. Its just assumed it falls under the inherent desire for self preservation.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
TriGear28 said:
No offense but if you had any ifr training you would know not to ever take off from an airport in ifr conditions without the ability to immediately return to that same airport if anything goes wrong.
Click to expand...
I've been flying IFR for more than 40 years, and I don't "know" that.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've been flying IFR for more than 40 years, and I don't "know" that.
Click to expand...
only 20 years for me so I haven't gotten to that lesson either. It's sort of difficult departing into an overcast from the farm strip, to return to the farm. Maybe with enough warning my brother could convert his clothesline into an NDB.
 
JHW said:
only 20 years for me so I haven't gotten to that lesson either. It's sort of difficult departing into an overcast from the farm strip, to return to the farm. Maybe with enough warning my brother could convert his clothesline into an NDB.
Click to expand...

Sure but i will bet you have the equipment, the charts, the experience, and I certainly hope, have an approach to AN airport set, reviewed, and ready to go in the event something goes wrong. I've been ifr certified for nearly 20 years as well. There is sadly a reason the FAA has chosen to pull in the reins, as it were.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
You never, ever depart from an airfield unless you have the minimum wx for the IAP at the departure field.:D
 
Velocity173 said:
You never, ever depart from an airfield unless you have the minimum wx for the IAP at the departure field.:D
Click to expand...

Spoken like a pro! We are not all pro pilots but the onus is on us to do our damndest to behave like we are.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
Keep in mind the faa has been extremely lenient in its restrictions to ifr flight historically. This doesn't mean that launching into ifr conditions without ifr equipment in formation flight is a forgivable offense. Or, for that matter, sane. The faa still tested me on the zero-zero takeoff in a single engine airplane. That's still not something i advocate, even though its legal. I personally think training zero-zero landing practice is much more beneficial. Why? One may save your butt. The other encourages a person to self-induce a possible emergency.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
TriGear28 said:
Spoken like a pro! We are not all pro pilots but the onus is on us to do our damndest to behave like we are.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
or not. I'm not a professional driver so I don't have to stop at weigh stations. I'm not a part121 pilot so I don't have to abide by part 121 restrictions. Different rules for different games. If you are playing airbus in your skylane, you are missing out on an awful lot of useful flexibility that part91 affords.

as an example, making approaches into rural airports, with the unknowns of weather reporting accuracy it's often useful to take a try at an approach regardless of reported ceilings. Often the reported weather is far from accurate. That's a very useful freedom afforded by part 91.
 
Last edited:
This may be true but dont complain when the faa further restricts all of our rights as a result of someone stretching the rules too far. I personally do not see the stretch involved in the opening thread as being a safe level of risk management nor do i believe most experienced pilots do. Perhaps i am wrong there as i cannot speak for them.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
Oh... and 121pilots don't launch into imc without the proper functioning equip either. Its kind of the law.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
Absolutely! Trying an approach into an airport when the weather is below mins. Absolutely acceptable! Launching into ifr conditions KNOWING the conditions will be below minimum at the destination? Hell no!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
TriGear28 said:
Absolutely! Trying an approach into an airport when the weather is below mins. Absolutely acceptable! Launching into ifr conditions KNOWING the conditions will be below minimum at the destination? Hell no!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
how departing from my farm into an 800ish ft overcast? I did that last week among many other times. There is an ILS at an airport 10 miles away. By your own account, I'm a danger to myself and others because I can't get back into the departure field. If I did have an issue, why on earth would i want to go back to the farm rather than to a place with people and ambulances ?

your attempt to apply hard and fast rules to every situation does not make you "professional" it makes you inflexible and unable to deal with changing circumstances.
 
Read the posts! Have AN approach programmed in and, lets make it clear, into a certified piece of equipment, AND have reviewed the approach AND have the training to shoot it on your own without the hope of following someone else.

These are not'hard and fast'. They just aren't'fast and loose.'

As I have stated before, the IFR regulations in the u.s. are not particularly restrictive; however, why wouldn't someone be the best prepared they can be? Especially in a single pilot, single engine (most likely) ifr formation flight without proper equipment? Why on earth do people feel compelled to promote such an irresponsible act? And people wonder why the faa has seemingly silly regulations sometimes. ITS BECAUSE OF STUPID DECISIONS LIKE THIS!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
Why the FAA is or isn't restrictive and why they implement the regs they do is a matter of opinion and as such your opinion of how "irresponsible" or "stupid" these "decision might be is simply your opinion.

Clearly every boy here is out to prove which amongst them has the bigger...um logbooks. However once you get past that stage you realize it your ADM or experience or logbook doesn't necessarily improve with time. What is one to time of your ADM TriGear, when your forum DM seems not well thought out?

Passing judgment without reading the original post or the post your responding to is something your frustrated at Mr. Wright for. Yet you seem more guilty of it than any other in the thread. I give the same advice to you "Read the posts!"

Machfly's responses didn't indicate to me he was attempting this, nor were there sufficient evidence to judge his formation training as poor or otherwise. Yet here we are telling him that he's and idiot for doing this and asking him how his flight went or didn't. While the question is clearly hypothetical.

The OP has already been answered by many here:

Formation Flight into IMC does happen - however it seems the only solid reference of it working well is in a military environment. This confirms what I know on the topic.

Formation Flight into IMC with one ship in the formation not IFR Capable is not legal as per the FAA FAR's.

To answer Machfly's hypothetical question; a civilian pilot does not have the legal capacity to operate a VFR only aircraft into IMC for any period of time as part of a formation with an IFR capable lead or any other instance in normal flight conditions.

TriGear, in my opinion you are positing what is good practice for IFR Flight and convolving it with the OP. I don't think anyone on here disagrees with the opinion that taking off without a good plane to get back in if you need to is a bad idea. However I don't think everyone agrees that taking off in 0/0 is a death sentence as I interpret you suggest it to be. I didn't read any posts challenging your instrument prowess. Nor are we asking that you enlighten us with it.

This is a forum of aviators and perhaps what I consider most valuable in a good aviator is that ability to ask the question with no form of remorse and receive every answer in good faith.

I imagine that when the Wright Brothers told someone in their family they wanted to build a flying machine they were met with something similar to this:

"I let it go as long as i could possibly hold it in. WTF? If a person even has to ask a question so odd, so severe. The ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY No! If they had,why kill yourself and make the rest of us responsible people suffer more restrictions as a result of your stupidity?

I really want this to go on record as quite possibly one of the most dangerous and irresponsible questions i have ever heard of!"

This is a forum of men & some women who, in my opinion, are in pursuit of the refinement of their knowledge and skill by that old proverb 27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." There is clearly a lot of both knowledge and skill to be had on these forums - almost none of it is in one person.
 
For a hypothetical question that has a simple answer, this thread sure has lasted longer than I ever imagined.:yes:
 
Velocity173 said:
You never, ever depart from an airfield unless you have the minimum wx for the IAP at the departure field.:D
Click to expand...
Maybe you don't, but I've departed IFR from airports with no approach at all more times than I can count. As Jeff said, it's a matter of having appropriate options, not a requirement for an approach at the departure field and the weather to fly that approach.
 
TriGear28 said:
Keep in mind the faa has been extremely lenient in its restrictions to ifr flight historically. This doesn't mean that launching into ifr conditions without ifr equipment in formation flight is a forgivable offense. Or, for that matter, sane. The faa still tested me on the zero-zero takeoff in a single engine airplane.
Click to expand...
There is no requirement for a zero-zero takeoff on any FAA practical test. Even the ATP Instrument Takeoff Task is still 1/4 mile vis. And if an examiner has you attempt such a zero-zero takeoff and it goes wrong, the examiner's designation is subject to revocation, not to mention the question of your judgment as PIC in attempting such a foolish thing.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe you don't, but I've departed IFR from airports with no approach at all more times than I can count. As Jeff said, it's a matter of having appropriate options, not a requirement for an approach at the departure field and the weather to fly that approach.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ron, I thought the presence of the green gremlin with the buck teeth at the end of my statement would indicated I was joking. The statement was a widely taught technique in the Army that I tried to squash. We had no requirement to have departure IAP wx in case we had to turn back. Depending on who's on the controls it's 0/0 or 100 & 1/4. Now destination wx, that was a requirement for us. I appoligize for any confusion in my above statement.
 
Velocity173 said:
Sorry Ron, I thought the presence of the green gremlin with the buck teeth at the end of my statement would indicated I was joking. The statement was a widely taught technique in the Army that I tried to squash. We had no requirement to have departure IAP wx in case we had to turn back. Depending on who's on the controls it's 0/0 or 100 & 1/4. Now destination wx, that was a requirement for us. I appoligize for any confusion in my above statement.
Click to expand...
No problem. Just remember that sometimes the military does things the civilian world does not because "the fate of the Western World hangs in the outcome," and that alters the risk/benefit equation somewhat. For example, there was a rule in OPNAVINST 3710.7 (the Navy's Part 91) which said, "There is no peacetime mission requiring penetration of a thunderstorm." Notice the limitation of that rule to peacetime operations, and ask Bruce Chien about the time the Admiral tried to get him to fly a P-3 (not a Hurricane Hunter) through a typhoon.
 
Ron Levy said:
No problem. Just remember that sometimes the military does things the civilian world does not because "the fate of the Western World hangs in the outcome," and that alters the risk/benefit equation somewhat. For example, there was a rule in OPNAVINST 3710.7 (the Navy's Part 91) which said, "There is no peacetime mission requiring penetration of a thunderstorm." Notice the limitation of that rule to peacetime operations, and ask Bruce Chien about the time the Admiral tried to get him to fly a P-3 (not a Hurricane Hunter) through a typhoon.
Click to expand...

Interesting. We had waivers for flying in forcasted severe turbulence but thunderstorm penetration was strictly prohibited.
 
Velocity173 said:
Interesting. We had waivers for flying in forcasted severe turbulence but thunderstorm penetration was strictly prohibited.
Click to expand...

Even in combat? I read an SIR a while ago about a section of Supers that got mangled over Afghanistan in hail/t-storms while supporting a TIC, and the final endorsement (normally flag level) was that their decision making was sound and the mission requirements superseded normal hazardous wx avoidance requirements. I'd agree.
 
35 AoA said:
Even in combat? I read an SIR a while ago about a section of Supers that got mangled over Afghanistan in hail/t-storms while supporting a TIC, and the final endorsement (normally flag level) was that their decision making was sound and the mission requirements superseded normal hazardous wx avoidance requirements. I'd agree.
Click to expand...

Well I'd agree as well and I'd hope my CoC would stick up for me or my fellow aviators if we dinged up some aircraft during bad wx. I think we've all made decisions in combat that would never get approved or forgiven in peacetime. As far as any written waiver though, no we didn't have it. AR 95-1 specifically says we can't intentionally fly into a thunderstorm. We always have emergency authorization to deviate from that directive. Would that hold up in an FEB? I would hope so. I will say we did fly in crap (sandstorms) that we never would get approval for in the States. We also were the first Army BDE to ever fly during red illum (no moon) in OEF. Formation dust landings border on insane in those conditions!
 
Velocity173 said:
Machfly it sounds like you guys are doing formation flying at your field without any official training. I would highly recommend if your taking part in that to stop immediately and attend some formal class (FAST) before continuing.
Click to expand...

Well I haven't had any official training done by the US military if that's what you mean. However when I was doing my formation training it was done by ex-US military personal.

Flying formation entails intricate planning and briefing. Its not just flying off a wing. I've flown thousands of formation hours in the Army and everything is covered from start up to taxiing back into parking. Formation type, angle, distance, altitude, speed and pilot duties. Then you cover contingencies such as loss of visual, IIMC (helos), mechanical emergencies or downed aircraft procedures (peacetime). Everything has code words and phrases to keep frequency congestion to a minimum. We even use light signals (anticollision or NAV) as a way of communicating. Of course all that is the basics, combat adds a whole seperate process to the brief.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of that. Except for the bit about combat, that I have no experience in.

Ron brought up dissimilar aircraft. I'm sure he'll cover performance differences so I won't hit that. My primary problem with dissimilar aircraft isn't the performance, it's the unknown on pilot experience / SOP. If you read the other thread (A Story) on the Key West crash you'd see what happens when a lack of common SOP and communication can do. I don't fly in formation with anyone that I don't know about their training or SOP. Example, last year I was tasked (EMS) to fly a dissimilar formation (B407, EC-135) for a funeral flyover. I didn't care about the dissimilar performance but I did care about the fact the EC-135 guy only had 45 mins of previous formation time. No way, no way I'm letting someone fly behind me with that experience so I told him he was flight lead. Of course with little experience his flight brief was pretty rudimentary. If it was me and one of my former military buds, we would have briefed it in detail and from the ground you would've seen a difference.

As indicated in the F-4 example above even the military guys screw it up and they do it on a regular basis. If you're going out and "winging it" your just adding even more of a risk to something that already has a level of risk to it. I assure you that if you attend a FAST class or one of the other formation classes taught around the country, formation flying will be a much safer and enjoyable experience for all involved.
Click to expand...

I realize that if you fly with someone from a different squadron or branch they might have different procedures than you which might cause a dangerous situation. What I'm saying is that if everyone in formation is following the same SOP then slightly-dissimilar aircraft shouldn't create a problem.
 
35 AoA said:
Probably pretty different characteristics. It can be a challenge to be a smooth platform for a wingman to fly off of through IMC even in the same airplane. Suck a little too much power off in a descent, and he has nowhere to go but forward, or down and blind into the clouds.....as an example. So you can probably see where 2 aircraft with wildly different aerodynamics, engine response, drag in all configurations, etc could really factor into that. It isn't really a big deal if you are flying loose/tactical formation at an airpeed both your aircraft are comfortable at, but it gets real hairy when you are the faster jet trying to fly form off the slow(er) guy. Back to the similar formation example, it is also easy to make a wingman uncomfortably slow when in parade/close formation in the landing configuration if you have different fuel loads (gross weight split). If the flight lead has burned more gas, his approach speed is slower, and the wingman who is trying to hang on is probably full slow on the AoA indexer if not worse....at least if there is a big enough fuel split (maybe a thousand lbs or more in the Hornet specifically). Just some "whys" to consider...
Click to expand...
Ron Levy said:
Total mismatch of thrust-drag and operating speeds. Among other things, the power/weight ratio of the F-4 is way higher, the A-7 has a high (for a fighter) bypass turbofan and the F-4 has an afterburning turbojet with totally different engine response. The A-7 climbs at 250, while the F-4 is best at 350. And on, and on...
Click to expand...

Didn't realize the F-4 & A-7 were so different.

I guess you've never tried it in tactical jets like that.
Click to expand...

Sadly never flown a tactical jet. :nonod:
 
TriGear28 said:
No offense but if you had any ifr training you would know not to ever take off from an airport in ifr conditions without the ability to immediately return to that same airport if anything goes wrong. Kind of hard to program a return approach into equipment that doesn't exist or has failed.

My point is I've never heard a pilot key the mic and request permission to commit suicide.

Not to mention the FAA does not have the capacity to care for pilot induced emergencies. Their gratitude will not be extended after the fact. There is a category for these kinds of accidents. Its called lack of proper ADM. The FAA is currently looking at changing regulations just to find such errors in judgment prior to certification as a result.

I am sure no specific regulation exists for the exact situation involved. Its just assumed it falls under the inherent desire for self preservation.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

On that basis you might as well say that flying is too dangerous and stay on the ground all together.
 
MachFly said:
Well I haven't had any official training done by the US military if that's what you mean. However when I was doing my formation training it was done by ex-US military personal.



I'm well aware of that. Except for the bit about combat, that I have no experience in.



I realize that if you fly with someone from a different squadron or branch they might have different procedures than you which might cause a dangerous situation. What I'm saying is that if everyone in formation is following the same SOP then slightly-dissimilar aircraft shouldn't create a problem.
Click to expand...

Not saying you need military experience to do formation, there are civilian schools all around the country. I look at formation like doing aerobatics. I'd never do it without proper training and when I have done it, it was with instructors who had extensive aerobatic experience.

If you're doing it with former military guys and they brief with some sort of standard, I'd say that's probably a safe operation. I know most of the RV guys have a set of published standards for formation and the infamous overhead breaks they do. You can tell those who have training because they say very little on CTAF and the formation looks solid. Those who make it up as they go, sound like it, and look like it.
 
MachFly said:
What I'm saying is that if everyone in formation is following the same SOP then slightly-dissimilar aircraft shouldn't create a problem.
Click to expand...
My idea of "slightly-dissimilar" includes non-identical aircraft of similar configuration, thrust/drag, speed/climb, and power response characteristics, like maybe a Grumman Cheetah and a 180 Cherokee or Archer. I'd say it does not include a Bonanza and an L-39. Beyond that, my experience tells me to be very conservative, especially for a formation takeoff.
 
Ron Levy said:
My idea of "slightly-dissimilar" includes non-identical aircraft of similar configuration, thrust/drag, speed/climb, and power response characteristics, like maybe a Grumman Cheetah and a 180 Cherokee or Archer. I'd say it does not include a Bonanza and an L-39. Beyond that, my experience tells me to be very conservative, especially for a formation takeoff.
Click to expand...

This is also true. As another example, we don't do section takeoffs (as in both jets start their takeoff roll already in formation) with differently configured aircraft. So even though it is the same type of airplane, if one guy has 2 drop tanks, and the other has a centerline and a bomb rack or something, then you don't do it. There isn't a limitation due to configuration for really any other realm of flight than that (that I can think of), but it proves the point that even that slight difference matters in terms of performance and handling characteristics.....or at least the test pilots and engineers with the big brains decided it mattered. I will say that you notice a big difference trying to fly a jet with a whole bunch of stuff hanging off the wings in formation with a slick jet. Again, same airplane, much different drag effect and different required power settings. Same is true other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top