Overhead break

MikeD said:
At speed, in formation; yes a 360 decelerating, spacing, descending pattern is indeed fastest and most efficient in terms of a VFR pattern.
Click to expand...

Doesn't add up to me. Coming in from north landing to the north. I fly by/180/fly by/360/land. I can see it in some circumstances.
 
AAPalmTree said:
Doesn't add up to me. Coming in from north landing to the north. I fly by/180/fly by/360/land. I can see it in some circumstances.
Click to expand...

Because you're not coming in at 250-350 knots, having to deal with separating out a formation without creating a downwind that extends into two counties, and slowing everything down to landing/configurations speeds in the shortest space possible, whilst recovering them in minimum time. That's why it doesn't add up.

If you even just watch just the final turn from downwind, where it's a single constant-descending 180 degree turn from downwind abeam the numbers, all the way to touchdown; its far faster than a standard base leg, final leg rectangular pattern.

Same reason it doesn't add up for most civilians to see jets landing on the runway while other jets are still ahead rolling out, only 3000 ft spacing required between same-types. It's foreign for them to see.

In IMC, we had a formation instrument recovery procedure called ASLAR that recovered formations of planes on an instrument penetration/approach, far faster than could be done with single-aircraft approaches.

aslar.JPG
 
Last edited:
The overhead is also popular with the poorly trained or new to fast home built types, such as the RV series. They don't plan the descent or approach well and then come screaming in to the pattern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MikeD said:
Because you're not coming in at 250-350 knots, having to deal with separating out a formation without creating a downwind that extends into two counties, and slowing everything down to landing/configurations speeds in the shortest space possible, whilst recovering them in minimum time. That's why it doesn't add up.

If you even just watch just the final turn from downwind, where it's a single constant-descending 180 degree turn from downwind abeam the numbers, all the way to touchdown; its far faster than a standard base leg, final leg rectangular pattern.

Same reason it doesn't add up for most civilians to see jets landing on the runway while other jets are still ahead rolling out, only 3000 ft spacing required between same-types. It's foreign for them to see.

In IMC, we had a formation instrument recovery procedure called ASLAR that recovered formations of planes on an instrument penetration/approach, far faster than could be done with single-aircraft approaches.

View attachment 34744
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to do the math to prove my case. Enjoy the break. It's definitely the cooler way.
 
MikeD said:
It's not a matter of math. It's just a fact. Point is, what you have experience in, doesn't translate to the type of operation(s) necessary that are being described here. The only thing they have in common, are planes landing.
Click to expand...

Everything comes down to math. Think about how long/far you plan to fly south at 250-300 to set up for the break when you could just cut it short and fly it like a low key. It's math... I promise.
 
Last edited:
AAPalmTree said:
Everything comes down to math. Think about how far south you plan to fly at 250-300 to set up for the break when you could just cut it short and fly it like a low key. It's math... I promise.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of distance as it is a mater of speed/time.

The purpose of the break is to facilitate the quickest cruise to entry to touch down to landing to reset for the Sortie. Remember it's a combat aircraft thing so it's not a matter of sequencing to arrive with a gate open and passenger offload to a minimum, it's to facilitate an airplane running back to the house on what is likely min fuel after expending ordnance needing to get down in a hurry to reload, refuel, and go do it again. A lot of those planes don't have speed breaks so the quickest way to go from kicking butt cruise to slow with gear and flaps deployed is to burn the energy off with a declarative turn.
 
Lawman said:
It's not a matter of distance as it is a mater of speed/time.

The purpose of the break is to facilitate the quickest cruise to entry to touch down to landing to reset for the Sortie. Remember it's a combat aircraft thing so it's not a matter of sequencing to arrive with a gate open and passenger offload to a minimum, it's to facilitate an airplane running back to the house on what is likely min fuel after expending ordnance needing to get down in a hurry to reload, refuel, and go do it again. A lot of those planes don't have speed breaks so the quickest way to go from kicking butt cruise to slow with gear and flaps deployed is to burn the energy off with a declarative turn.
Click to expand...

Yes it does come down to time, distance & speed.
 
Lawman said:
A lot of those planes don't have speed breaks so the quickest way to go from kicking butt cruise to slow with gear and flaps deployed is to burn the energy off with a declarative turn.
Click to expand...

Precisely. And even if they did have speed brakes, a fighter's wings are made for efficiency at speed rather than a long, slow approach. The latter uses a lot of fuel on a fighter, much more so than entering the overhead.
 
AAPalmTree said:
Everything comes down to math. Think about how long/far you plan to fly south at 250-300 to set up for the break when you could just cut it short and fly it like a low key. It's math... I promise.
Click to expand...

Setup for a break? Break is at approach end and never further than about a mile past departure end for inside downwind traffic (otherwise, you're told to proceed straight through and reenter via the outside downwind). Add to that bleeding speed to a downwind turn post-break, with the last half of it a descending 180 abeam the numbers, and it's much quicker than a rectangular pattern...and, it facilitates a formation breakup to proper spacing. A rectangular pattern doesn't allow for that. An overhead may "look cool", but it is designed for practicality for many reasons, for tactical jet aircraft.
 
RDoug said:
Precisely. And even if they did have speed brakes, a fighter's wings are made for efficiency at speed rather than a long, slow approach. The latter uses a lot of fuel on a fighter, much more so than entering the overhead.
Click to expand...

This adds up. If this is the more efficient recovery it makes sense to add time.
 
AAPalmTree said:
Landing to the north when inbound from the north.
Click to expand...

In a rectangular pattern? You still spend more time in a downwind - base- final , than I will beginning from the same place downwind abeam the numbers with a descending 180 turn to touchdown. Thats just latter part of the pattern. Early part of the pattern-wise, separating out a formation on a standard 45 to downwind, just doesn't work with jets.
 
MikeD said:
In a rectangular pattern? You still spend more time in a downwind - base- final , than I will beginning from the same place downwind abeam the numbers with a descending 180 turn to touchdown. Thats just latter part of the pattern. Early part of the pattern-wise, separating out a formation on a standard 45 to downwind, just doesn't work with jets.
Click to expand...


Not what I was saying. I'm going to enter a downwind from the north 180 to landing. You're going to fly south of the field to approach from the south to fly the overhead.
 
The response to the OP said the overhead is the fastest. It's not always. It's the best way to recover multiple ship. It sounds like it's also the most efficient.
 
AAPalmTree said:
Not what I was saying. I'm going to enter a downwind from the north 180 to landing. You're going to fly south of the field to approach from the south to fly the overhead.
Click to expand...

Yes, and.

If I'm single ship, I can easily fly a downwind entry. But my base to final turn is going to be a constant 180, faster than your rectangular squared-off turns to final. The last half of my pattern is always the same, doesn't matter overhead or entering on downwind. So its still faster. As well as efficient.
 
MikeD said:
Yes, and.

If I'm single ship, I can easily fly a downwind entry. But my base to final turn is going to be a constant 180, faster than your rectangular squared-off turns to final. The last half of my pattern is always the same, doesn't matter overhead or entering on downwind. So its still faster. As well as efficient.
Click to expand...

Hey man.. I'm not saying I'm going toe to toe with you in the Airbus. You'll be at the FBO drinking coffee before I think about about briefing the approach. I'm talking same plane different approaches.
 
AAPalmTree said:
Hey man.. I'm not saying I'm going toe to toe with you in the Airbus. You'll be at the FBO drinking coffee before I think about about briefing the approach. I'm talking same plane different approaches.
Click to expand...

Thats what I was saying long before, the overhead is designed for tactical jets. Can anyone fly one? Sure. Does everyone benefit or gain from what they're intended for? No. Average GA planes flying overhead maneuvers, if everyone else is flying a rectangular pattern, can cause some real pattern problems that are wholly unnecessary. There's no practical need for it. It's for specific aircraft in specific cases. No, the A320 won't gain anything from it either, and neither do a formation of Extra 300s or RV-4s for that matter. Not necessarily practical for them. For a formation of tactical jets however, it is the most efficient, quickest, and easiest way to take jets that hate being slow, from an environment of clean and high speed, to dirty and touching down. Thats all. For that matter, when I see civil planes doing an overhead, it's interesting. But when they do one and it screws up a normal pattern at a field, it's embarassing. :)
 
@AAPalmTree can't you just ask your Captain about all this, during his "mission" brief. When he's talking about the planned sortie, and how you guys are departing DFW with 180 souls on board. On a deep interdiction strike, into the heart of enemy territory in Arkansas. Instead of arguing about it here online?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top