Pattern Madness

or A properly flown OB is "almost" a power off landing from mid-field @1500 feet, with a high bank (high G to bleed speed) turn back to the numbers..
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.
 
TI thought the purpose of the formation break was to sequence the aircraft for landing. If so, it seems to me that can be done outside the pattern.
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.
 
I have no problem with formation flight. I have no problem with aerobatics. I've done them both. But the only reason for the OH break is to show off. The formation can be broken 3 miles from the field, and everyone can land straight in. If I am flying a pattern, and I hear "flight of 6, 3 mile final all landing in tow" I can extend, and be #7 to land. I'm of the mind set of the less time in the airport environment the less time for something to go wrong. I will fly a straight in 95% of the time, and adjust as necessary for anyone else already there. Doing the OH thing just keeps you in the AE longer.
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.
 
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.

Yeh, I guess I should have left the G part out. I bet at max it's 1.5g in the break @ 150 in the 6.
 
Yeh, I guess I should have left the G part out. I bet at max it's 1.5g in the break @ 150 in the 6.
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.
 
Rumor has it, Mr. Van himself loved the looks of the Grumman and made the 6.. Not sure if it's true but there's so much bravo sierra floating around this thread, what does a little more hurt.

I often wondered why more of the AA1s were not converted to 150 horse tail draggers.
 
I often wondered why more of the AA1s were not converted to 150 horse tail draggers.
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.
 
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.

That's a good thing..... Right.

we have one at OKH that has the 0-235 and the TD conversion, he brags 150Kn on 6.5 gallons per hour.

he holds it on a 20" wide runway. up hill or down.

It's a case if you aren't that good you shouldn't be there, but how do you get that good without being there.
 
we have one at OKH that has the 0-235 and the TD conversion, he brags 150Kn on 6.5 gallons per hour.
"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.

he holds it on a 20" wide runway. up hill or down.
Given that the wheel track is about 80-90", that's quite a trick.
It's a case if you aren't that good you shouldn't be there, but how do you get that good without being there.
You build up to it. Start with an easy TD, then move to something trickier, and finally to the trickiest.
 
I often wondered why more of the AA1s were not converted to 150 horse tail draggers.

The useful load gets pretty low when you add the bigger engine. Also, the fuel burn goes up so you get into a range/payload balance that doesn't work for a lot of people.

A neighbor with a 135 hp AA-1-something could carry a passenger or enough gas to go somewhere. Not both.
 
The useful load gets pretty low when you add the bigger engine.
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.

Also, the fuel burn goes up so you get into a range/payload balance that doesn't work for a lot of people.
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.

A neighbor with a 135 hp AA-1-something could carry a passenger or enough gas to go somewhere. Not both.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Are you saying that its impossible to break formation 3 miles from the airport?
 
Ohh, this thread is gonna get revved up again.. Yay!
 
If you can't land a C150 engine out 1000' AGL from 1.5 miles away you're a pi$$ poor pilot, hero.
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.

Your Hero,
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that its impossible to break formation 3 miles from the airport?
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.

BTW, I hold FFI Flight Lead card FL-64, and have had a flight lead ride observed by Sturdy himself chasing the 4-ship in his RV (with the check pilot who had done my FL ride in the formation, nervously watching but not saying anything except "4"). I learned a lot in the debrief, but still had my FL qual when it was over. :whew:
 
First, unless you're talking statute miles, 1.5 miles is over 9100 feet straight line to the runway. Add in turn radius to go from downwind heading to runway heading and getting lined up with the runway and the path from 1.5 miles abeam including going far enough downwind to make the turn back outside the threshold is way beyond 9000 feet. If you're more than about 3/4 mile abeam in a C-150, a textbook 180 power-off approach is well-nigh impossible.

First, I was talking Statute miles, and I suspect most do when they're referring to pattern sizes.

You wouldn't be going far enough downwind. You'd have to make an IMMEDIATE turn directly towards the runway then cross your fingers. I was pointing out that it wouldn't be easy to make it 1.5 miles as Dan stated.
 
First, I was talking Statute miles, and I suspect most do when they're referring to pattern sizes.
Personally, I think nm when "miles" is stated (other than ground vis), but perhaps others don't.

You wouldn't be going far enough downwind. You'd have to make an IMMEDIATE turn directly towards the runway then cross your fingers.
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.

I was pointing out that it wouldn't be easy to make it 1.5 miles as Dan stated.
Agreed.
 
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.

Why would they do straight in approaches?

If their ego isn't blocking their view, why can't you break up 5-10 miles out and enter the pattern as the FAA advises?

seems to me, the advantage is smaller than the risk.
 
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.

Doesn't that really depend upon the winds? roaring down the down wind with 30 on the tail, I'm turning in ASAP. get it over the runway, Your duty is to survive the accident, not save the aircraft..
 
That's a skinny strip of pavement.. ;)

This was taken 5 years ago, since then the edges have broken up pretty bad and gotten even narrower.
 

Attachments

  • air port.jpg
    air port.jpg
    813.2 KB · Views: 28
You can keep the same range if you throttle back, .

That's pretty funny, You know any one building a 150 horse AA? isn't going to throttle back, they are going to add every speed mod they can find push that throttle up and grin............. then land for fuel.

When they do this stuff they are building toys not economical traveling machines.
 
Why would they do straight in approaches?
That was Ed's idea, not mine.

If their ego isn't blocking their view, why can't you break up 5-10 miles out and enter the pattern as the FAA advises?
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.

seems to me, the advantage is smaller than the risk.
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.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty funny, You know any one building a 150 horse AA? isn't going to throttle back, they are going to add every speed mod they can find push that throttle up and grin............. then land for fuel.
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.

When they do this stuff they are building toys not economical traveling machines.
Agreed.
 
What risk?

The risk of having 35 pages of pilots talking about dumb moves in the pattern.

Roaring into the overhead break, and making a big show of some weird acro getting into the flow of traffic is not conducive to good pilot relations, as this thread has shown.
 
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.

Thanks for the edit, That's the big clue, most new/low time pilots won't have the skills thus he believes it is dangerous, thus this thread.
 
The risk of having 35 pages of pilots talking about dumb moves in the pattern.
:rofl:

Roaring into the overhead break, and making a big show of some weird acro getting into the flow of traffic is not conducive to good pilot relations, as this thread has shown.
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.
 
Last edited:
This was taken 5 years ago, since then the edges have broken up pretty bad and gotten even narrower.

Looks a touch wider than 20".. :) I was just giving you a hard time.. :wink2:
 
Thanks for the edit, That's the big clue, most new/low time pilots won't have the skills thus he believes it is dangerous, thus this thread.
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.
 
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.

+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..

6d441e1b.jpg
 
+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..

6d441e1b.jpg
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.
 
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.

That is what it looks like to the untrained eye, And them stupid pilots need to stop that dangerous stuff.

Ya gotta admit there really is no need for it, except when a few pilots need to pump up there egos by proving they can do it.

Hey! lets form a club, we can call it XYZ squadron and we can practice all sort of stuff the dummies can't do..

Me I'll stick to flying the way I normally do, alone, straight and level, and enter as the wind sock and segments circle direct.
 
That is what it looks like to the untrained eye..

That's exactly what it was. Several things went wrong on that flight. Started with no brief of the form up at all. 100% unplanned.
 
Ya gotta admit there really is no need for [formation flying], except when a few pilots need to pump up there egos by proving they can do it.
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.
 
Ron, a quick question.
You say that a properly executed formation break doesn't hammer the pattern, and you eluded to multiple ships rounding in the pattern and landing simultaneously. In order to keep the time down and not overwhelm the pattern, it seems that multiple ships would be landing at the same time. Is that how it is done, or am I not understanding? Would multiple ships be on the runway simultaneously?
 
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.

BTW, I hold FFI Flight Lead card FL-64, and have had a flight lead ride observed by Sturdy himself chasing the 4-ship in his RV (with the check pilot who had done my FL ride in the formation, nervously watching but not saying anything except "4"). I learned a lot in the debrief, but still had my FL qual when it was over. :whew:

And the difference between 6 people leaving an airport individually one after another and arriving individually one after the other and breaking up the formation prior to reaching the destination would be what exactly? 6 planes, all RVs lets say with their 500' landing roll, would require what...1/4 mile spacing between them, which ends up being a whopping 1-1/4 miles from front to back. Yeah, you're really strung out there. Yeah, that's really going to cause someone to extend quite a few miles. :rolleyes:

I will say it again, arriving formation with an OH is nothing more that showboating. If you don't want straight ins, then arrive upwind and stagger the crosswind turns.
 
Back
Top