Why formation when going from A to B?
Discussion
I'm sure I heard the guy on the tannoy at RIAT yesterday suggest it helped with (fuel?) efficiency and airframe stresses yesterday. Can't think they're primary reasons, probably more to do with being a skill they need to have so if they're going A to B they may as well just go together.
Flying in a 'V' formation is beneficial for the aircraft flying behind the leader because of the reduction in induced drag it affords. The leader's rotating wing tip vortices result in downwash on the leader's wing and upwash on the wings of those following. Upwash has the effect of rotating the lift vector forwards (i.e. in to the airflow), therefore reducing the component of drag (which is parallel to, and in the direction of, the airflow). The same principle applies to aircraft further out in the formation; with a bit of effort it's possible to determine the drag reduction based on position.
Crossflow Kid said:
The idea that only one aircraft in a formation will be navigating is a little rose tinted.
One navigates.
Two checks.
Three double checks.
Etc.
Tactical formation yes, *close* formation no. When you're a few feet off the other chap's wingtip, the only distraction from station keeping I find is the occasional fleeting glance at the engine gauges, certainly no scope for dicking about with maps, maybe a glance at the GPS if it falls within the line of sight of the main formation reference.One navigates.
Two checks.
Three double checks.
Etc.
SOP we use is that one of the first things the leader tells a formation member when breaking out is where they are.
eharding said:
Crossflow Kid said:
The idea that only one aircraft in a formation will be navigating is a little rose tinted.
One navigates.
Two checks.
Three double checks.
Etc.
Tactical formation yes, *close* formation no. When you're a few feet off the other chap's wingtip, the only distraction from station keeping I find is the occasional fleeting glance at the engine gauges, certainly no scope for dicking about with maps, maybe a glance at the GPS if it falls within the line of sight of the main formation reference.One navigates.
Two checks.
Three double checks.
Etc.
SOP we use is that one of the first things the leader tells a formation member when breaking out is where they are.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th July 07:31
simonrockman said:
Birds fly in formation and they are not doing it to impress anyone.
Sorry, the birds disagree:http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technol...
Back on topic: I saw The Red Arrows the other week on a transit over the Lake District and they appeared to be in 2 formations (couldn't really see properly because of the trees but they did go over in 2 packs of noise!
From an FJ point of view close formation is primarily a way of getting around as efficiently as possible. Less traffic for atc, less airspace used up and no need to waste time/fuel rejoining to do whatever you're going to do. Obviously whether you are actually in close formation is dictated by weather.
I can't believe the fuel efficiency/airframe stresses argument. Although there may be a theoretical increase in lift due to wing tip vortices(although equally likely to result in a decrease) the demanding nature of flying as a wingman in close means that wingmen will almost always use more fuel than the leader.
Obviosuly tactical situations can dictate flying any number of variations of formation(including close form).
I can't believe the fuel efficiency/airframe stresses argument. Although there may be a theoretical increase in lift due to wing tip vortices(although equally likely to result in a decrease) the demanding nature of flying as a wingman in close means that wingmen will almost always use more fuel than the leader.
Obviosuly tactical situations can dictate flying any number of variations of formation(including close form).
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff