GAHAHAHAHHAHA, I admit, I did it....

What makes you think I'm not doing this?



Would be cool to have this in the sim, have the aircraft have their own personalities...

Your posts?

And that..is the definition of putting a square peg in a round hole. Theory vs. reality. If your plane can't do it - you can't do it - regardless of whether you are Walter Mitty or Chuck Yeager.

Beach, while I can't claim to be working on military aircraft, I do happen to know people who do, like I imagine you do as well. The maintenance guys should probably tell you something like this: Sure, every airframe will have acquired some 'personality' in that you have to trim one a click to the left, the other two clicks to the right - the engines however are trimmed accurately to spec, and there will be nothing impossible about the situation I described - the aircraft will fly like they're supposed to, ie. more or less the same. These aren't airliners, they're high-performance fighter jets that are constantly tightened up to deliver consistent performance.

And I'll add this again - these pilots train to stay together at 100% power, be it military or afterburner. If something happens and one can't keep up, that's the way life goes, but reality still is that those aircraft can, and do, on a regular basis

The military must be significantly different than civil aviation then. Because I can 100% guarantee you that different aircraft with the same engines perform significantly different. Heck - even the same engines on the same airframe perform significantly differently. Our current Citation V (JT15D-5A engines) has engines that differ by 40 lbs. of fuel flow side to side and 20C of ITT split. The only thing that ever matches up perfectly in flight are the N1 RPMs (assuming the engine sync is working).

I've also flown different serial numbers of the same aircraft (Citation S/II) that had very significant flight characteristics. The S/II I flew for the textile company I was employed by was 30 knots faster than the same airframe/engine combo that was only a few serial numbers away from another S/II I flew (for Alltel communications). The Alltel S/II had the nickname "Old Smokey" because it had an engine that would smoke significantly after shutdown. If the Alltel S/II were in cruise at 100% power it wouldn't be able to keep up with the other S/II. Same with our different serial number King Airs. We have one that is 20 knots faster at the same power setting. There are so many variables to a jet engine that no two are exactly alike.




Except when they can't right?

I'm just giving my direct observations from my thousands of hours in aircraft. I'd be curious what a military pilot thinks about (if) military fighters also have performance differences between serial numbers.

You work angles. At least that's my understanding. Lead usually gives you some area to work with though if it's straight. In training environment...

"WC, how *fast* are you going?"

WC: "Oh, sorry! OK, Fan RPM is now (back) at 75%."

I'm not disagreeing or saying that you're wrong when it comes to those aircraft. What I -am- saying is that if you're dealing with an F-15 for example, the crew chiefs will be tightening the screws to make sure the engine is at spec (incidentally, BTW, the engines are typically trimmed to less than full rated power in order to extend their life - IIRC for a -220 the typical trim is 97% as an example).




You can have an engine problem, you may have expended far fewer munitions, you may have burned a lot less fuel. All that means that you'll end up staying with lead anyway, but probably at lower altitude since you give up pitch for speed. In a turning situation you go inside the circle. There are limitations to everything, but one way or another, you have to keep up.



They do - military pilots will or should probably tell you that each airframe has to be trimmed a little different etc.
Fact is that there is a necessity of being able to keep up at 100% in certain situations. In some cases they are relatively short (ie a maneuvering dogfight lasting 60 sec) to a 5 minute high-spped dash to intercept. If you can't maintain formation, the tactics that you want to use can become ineffective. Nothing is perfect of course, but you get the idea

Ok then. I will assume that you missed all the bits I've said about having fun doing formation landings and #%&*$# about leads who leave their wingman behind.


Yes, but what if those limitations are exactly the things that prevent you from keeping up? How hard is it for lead to just putter along at 95% throttle so you at least have 5% to play with for catch-up? Surely the waypoints are not set up so that the flight has to be at 100% all the time.


It used to be that you'd have to ask the lead for speed and altitude checks every so often in order to "keep up." But as skills improve, the wingman can learn to position the lead on one area of his cockpit and keep him there. At first, I had to stare at the lead's aircraft like a serial killer fixating on his next victim, but as time wore on, I could relax a bit and enjoy the scenery while keeping lead in check. The "scan" we do with instruments and systems during flight, I just needed to add "check the lead's position" on that sequence, once it got second-nature, it was fun.

No, I just happened to read all the other bits, too



Pretty hard for lead to do less if he's briefed a max-performance climb-out, or he's in the middle of combat. Having loaded up on 6 mavs and 12 GBUs, you might find it hard to keep up - that, other than damage, is about the only reason I can come up with for being unable to keep up. Lead needs to do a little bit of due diligence when setting up the climbout and the formation for it, but so does the wingman, then keep up.



That's true, but it's a lot easier if there's a contract to begin with, and then no one needs to ask anything (most of the time). Just an idea.

And you still think I'm not learning/did not learn how to fly the aircraft? Just because I belittled the in-game use vs. real life use?


I'm no expert, but how often is a flight required to do a max-performance climb? Even after the max-performance climb, surely the lead can reduce throttle AT LEAST 5-10% to allow the wingman to catch up. Like I said, surely the waypoints aren't set up that the flight MUST be in 100% all the time. Combat is fine and I think formation flying is a bit more relaxed to give way to survivability (ie, increased spacing, a bit wider "station", etc.). I think you are confusing an incompetent wingman who despite lead's efforts cannot keep up with a wingman who cannot keep up despite trying due to several possible reasons (drag, engine performance, maneuvers, lead always on 100% throttle, etc.)


And what, pray tell, is that contract? That the lead just "do his thing" and let the wingman figure out how to keep up? I know that the lead has other duties and is not expected to babysit the wingman and make sure he is in formation, but again, how hard is it to park his throttle at 90-95% setting THEN go about his job? Also, this "contract and no one needs to ask" is all fine and dandy in real life, with guys who do this for a living and have probably flown with each other several times. In a hobby where you fly with different guys, I feel that more exchange of information means you're more likely to be on the same page with your wingman.

As required. If you're close enough to the front taking off from base or coming off the tanker and you must get to a certain altitude, you might want to do such a climb out. If you have to intercept bandits from a GAI mission, you pretty much must do such a climbout.

Any time that time is of the essence, or you have to get to altitude within a certain distance, or you have to keep up energy, you'll be at 100% throttle. And while lead can reduce throttle after, he certainly doesn't have to (again, as situation requires) and he certainly doesn't have to give you a whopping 5-10%. 2-3% is enough.
Formations are never 'relaxed'. Each formation has a purpose, including its spacing, and you're expected to be pretty much exactly on station. If you're in tactical line-abreast, you're expected to be on the 3-9 line at 6000'. Not in front of it, not behind it, but right on it, with a little wiggle room for distance and altitude. The enemy would like to shoot lead first, so if you don't maintain the line, guess what happens.



Yes, lead just 'does his thing', which is flying the contract. It wouldn't be much of a contract if lead didn't have to hit certain parameters - ie. if we're thinking of an A-10, let's say rejoins at 250, tactical formations at 280, etc (you can decided whatever contract you want, and lead can brief a different one or change it in flight if required, i.e. 'push it up 280' or call that he's slowing - not that you shouldn't be able to keep up with the changes, but if he changes the contract he should say so).

I just posted a very simple mission I made with an AI A-10C to practice straight and level station keeping.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3528152.html#Post3528152

It's much harder than it sounds. Give it a try!

Very nice Einstein, thanks!

If the lead AC has 100% power set his wingman/men will never keep up - simple as that. The lead must give some margin for jockeying the throttle, powering up when on the outside of a turn etc. Sure frontline guys doing it day in day out may be able to cut that margin to a tiny fraction, but its still gotta exist.

And one very important reason for close formation is getting 2/3/4 AC where ever they need to be as if they were a singleton - so three formations only give rise to three sets of RT calls as opposed to potentially 12 or more - and if they are communicating like a singleton, they need to behave like a singleton - close formation.

ps - The most useful reason for close formation? Absolute hooning run and breaks to look cool as #%&*$# (and get down quickly of course)!

What GrayGhost is not so clearly trying to say is that even with full power, if Lead is manuevering, the Wingman can turn inside Lead to close distance, even with similar power settings. This is basis for circular rejoins.

Now why a decent Flight Lead would choose to run at full throttle and then weave so his wingman could maintain formation, instead of just pulling the throttle back is beyond me.

Mainly yes, it also applies to some form of fighting wing maneuvering as well.



The answer to that one is 'it depends'. I'll ask about technique and see if I get a useful and clear answer to this question.

I'm still not following this then - in fighting wing with plenty of turning yeah you use lead and lag to maintain your position, or in a tail chase, but in close formation? Impossible - It just doesn't happen - and as alluded to earlier, sods law the leads machine will be running like a thoroughbred and yours'll be pulling like a lame donkey - he needs to give you some margin. Even in straight and level flight if he has his throttle jammed open you will have to make tiny adjustments to stay in position - he doesn't make any, and would therefore outstrip you almost immediately.

I have never seen any SOP's suggesting full throttle formation is ever done - I am willing to stand corrected, but I honestly can't think of any logical explanation as to how its even possible!

That's what the rest of us are saying/thinking. Very interested to see GrayGhost's material, but even if a whole wing of experienced combat pilots swore that they maintained close formation at full power, I would need some explanation of the physics (and a clear defintion of "close") before I could accept that claim. Antecdotal evidence never trumps physics.

To be fair, I don't think Gray (or anyone else) is saying that pilots maintain close formation at full power. I think it's an assumption that hasn't been flushed out.