Overhead Maneuver
- Thread starter Ophir
- Start date
[ QUOTE ]
So what is the real purpose for an overhead maneuver? When would you request one and why? MikeD?
[/ QUOTE ]
Overhead maneuver is the standard pattern at military fields for jet aircraft. It's a quick way to enter the pattern and land, while still keeping the speeds up to a manageable level when not configured. 45 entry to a square pattern doesn't work for swept wing jets very well; 117 hates being slow, especially when clean since it has no lifting devices, as do most swept wings when compared to straight wings. Mil fields also have two patterns: an inside downwind and an outside downwind. Pattern for the overhead is normally 1500 or 2000 AGL, vice the 1000 standard for the square pattern. The inside downwind, or closed pattern, is the pattern that's entered after the break from initial and when preparing to make the 180 to final to land. The outside downwind is for pattern spacing and to set up for a straight-in following a a touch and go or low approach, or to come back around and re-enter intital without affecting the inside downwind.
As a sidenote, if IFR, you're automatically cancelled when you're cleared for initial and change to tower. I use the overhead maneuver in civil planes as standard at civil fields as a way to expedite landing from altitude. Tower generally has no problem clearing it if at a controlled field, and if at an uncontrolled field, if traffic permits, I'll do the same.
So what is the real purpose for an overhead maneuver? When would you request one and why? MikeD?
[/ QUOTE ]
Overhead maneuver is the standard pattern at military fields for jet aircraft. It's a quick way to enter the pattern and land, while still keeping the speeds up to a manageable level when not configured. 45 entry to a square pattern doesn't work for swept wing jets very well; 117 hates being slow, especially when clean since it has no lifting devices, as do most swept wings when compared to straight wings. Mil fields also have two patterns: an inside downwind and an outside downwind. Pattern for the overhead is normally 1500 or 2000 AGL, vice the 1000 standard for the square pattern. The inside downwind, or closed pattern, is the pattern that's entered after the break from initial and when preparing to make the 180 to final to land. The outside downwind is for pattern spacing and to set up for a straight-in following a a touch and go or low approach, or to come back around and re-enter intital without affecting the inside downwind.
As a sidenote, if IFR, you're automatically cancelled when you're cleared for initial and change to tower. I use the overhead maneuver in civil planes as standard at civil fields as a way to expedite landing from altitude. Tower generally has no problem clearing it if at a controlled field, and if at an uncontrolled field, if traffic permits, I'll do the same.
Ophir
Well-Known Member
Sounds like fun. I was reading in the AIM about it and couldn't really ever see a use for it with a GA plane.
What sort of bank angles are you using? Was the A-10 different? I remember seeing the guys fly patterns in the A-10 near Ft. Bragg and they all used at least 45 degrees if not steeper.
What sort of bank angles are you using? Was the A-10 different? I remember seeing the guys fly patterns in the A-10 near Ft. Bragg and they all used at least 45 degrees if not steeper.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
I used to do something similar when I flew skydivers.
I would be descending at or near Vne in a 45-60 degree bank with the VSI pegged. I would continue this all the way down to 300-400 AGL to a midfield pattern entry. I would pull up and make a 270 turn which would put me right on final at the proper airspeed for a power off landing.
If you could master this you wouldn't ever add throttle from the jump run till touchdown. I could useually make it all the way down in 5-6 mins.
I would be descending at or near Vne in a 45-60 degree bank with the VSI pegged. I would continue this all the way down to 300-400 AGL to a midfield pattern entry. I would pull up and make a 270 turn which would put me right on final at the proper airspeed for a power off landing.
If you could master this you wouldn't ever add throttle from the jump run till touchdown. I could useually make it all the way down in 5-6 mins.
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like fun. I was reading in the AIM about it and couldn't really ever see a use for it with a GA plane.
What sort of bank angles are you using? Was the A-10 different? I remember seeing the guys fly patterns in the A-10 near Ft. Bragg and they all used at least 45 degrees if not steeper.
[/ QUOTE ]
60 degrees+ is standard, mine is 80+. Anything less is wrong.
Sounds like fun. I was reading in the AIM about it and couldn't really ever see a use for it with a GA plane.
What sort of bank angles are you using? Was the A-10 different? I remember seeing the guys fly patterns in the A-10 near Ft. Bragg and they all used at least 45 degrees if not steeper.
[/ QUOTE ]
60 degrees+ is standard, mine is 80+. Anything less is wrong.
CaliforniaSurfer
Well-Known Member
You're so cool jd....
MDPilot
Well-Known Member
Fun and challenging. Yep, I bet it was both. Next time, try some low level acro in your C-172, or go down to the sporting goods store and buy some NVGs so you can do night blacked-out low levels. Both of those are fun and challenging, too. Stupid and dangerous for the untrained, I might add. Just because you got away with "playing fighter pilot" by flying formation without sufficient training, doesn't mean you won't be the next accident we read about in the paper. Flying formation requires training and discipline to even reach a modicum of safety, and looks to me like you guys had neither. The fact that you're bragging about how dumb you are on the internet speaks volumes.
I really didn't want to write this, and sound like I was a know-it-all, but I don't want others on this board to emulate you and try some of that "fun and challenging" stuff, and end up killing themselves. Bottom line, don't do things in airplanes that you haven had competent training for. It's dangerous, and gives aviation a black eye when you die.
Edited to add: If you're determined to fly formation get some training like FAST or FFI . You will find out what fun and challenging is all about.
I really didn't want to write this, and sound like I was a know-it-all, but I don't want others on this board to emulate you and try some of that "fun and challenging" stuff, and end up killing themselves. Bottom line, don't do things in airplanes that you haven had competent training for. It's dangerous, and gives aviation a black eye when you die.
Edited to add: If you're determined to fly formation get some training like FAST or FFI . You will find out what fun and challenging is all about.
jdflight
Well-Known Member
Yep, and you probably shouldn't have written it without knowing how far apart we stayed, what kinds of safety discussions we had before the flight and what kinds of communication and "outs" we had planned. Not to mention that you really have no clue what kind of discipline either of us holds. I'll grant you that others shouldn't emulate this fun and challenging moment without understanding the risks and knowing what they're doing; and that it sounded like we were doing something stupid. But you weren't there, and don't really know either of us. Both PhotoPilot and I are extremely safe pilots, and the intimation that we would be dumb enough to try to perform such stupid stunts as low level acro in an aircraft unequipped for such is not only out of line, but just a tad hurtful.
MDPilot
Well-Known Member
Untrained pilots flying formation of any sort, at any separation, is just as dangerous as low level acro, you just don't realize it. If you had to "split up" in the break doing an overhead, you were flying formation too close for an untrained pilot.
Tell me the details of the formation training program you both attended, and I'll apoligize for sounding harsh. (Self-taught from reading a book doesn't count, BTW)
Tell me the details of the formation training program you both attended, and I'll apoligize for sounding harsh. (Self-taught from reading a book doesn't count, BTW)
Sir_Captain
New Member
Ophir
Well-Known Member
I was busted by my boss last year for flying formation. Ironically it was with my flight school director. Both of us have flown extensively in the mountains and are competent pilots. My boss is a former F-18 pilot and Top Gun graduate. He had an amazing career as an aviator and now owns our flight school and FBO. He nearly fired us for the incident. Once we sat and listened to the extend of training he felt was necessary to do this we really realized how over our heads were with the flight.
When I first read what you posted this went through my mind. I hate to say but having been on both sides of this coin I would side with MDPilot on this one. It is extremely dangerous and it is what you don't know that will kill you.
When I first read what you posted this went through my mind. I hate to say but having been on both sides of this coin I would side with MDPilot on this one. It is extremely dangerous and it is what you don't know that will kill you.
aloft
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Once we sat and listened to the extend of training he felt was necessary to do this we really realized how over our heads were with the flight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Eh, I'm not so sure this isn't a case of apples and oranges. Military guys always get all up in arms about formation flying, but the truth of the matter is that usually all of their formation experience is in jets or other heavier-than-a-172 aircraft, where they DO have to be cognizant of and actively manage their inertia and momentum. While I don't think that loose (30' separation) formation in a Cessna is as inherently risky as flying fingertip in a jet (half the separation, MAYBE 3' wingtip clearance), I will concede that visibility issues and lack of ejection seats probably evens it out.
I just think that sometimes mil guys buy into the "I'm a better pilot than you because I'm military-trained" a little more than is appropriate, and I'm not sure this isn't one of those times.
Once we sat and listened to the extend of training he felt was necessary to do this we really realized how over our heads were with the flight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Eh, I'm not so sure this isn't a case of apples and oranges. Military guys always get all up in arms about formation flying, but the truth of the matter is that usually all of their formation experience is in jets or other heavier-than-a-172 aircraft, where they DO have to be cognizant of and actively manage their inertia and momentum. While I don't think that loose (30' separation) formation in a Cessna is as inherently risky as flying fingertip in a jet (half the separation, MAYBE 3' wingtip clearance), I will concede that visibility issues and lack of ejection seats probably evens it out.
I just think that sometimes mil guys buy into the "I'm a better pilot than you because I'm military-trained" a little more than is appropriate, and I'm not sure this isn't one of those times.
[ QUOTE ]
I just think that sometimes mil guys buy into the "I'm a better pilot than you because I'm military-trained" a little more than is appropriate, and I'm not sure this isn't one of those times.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say that. I would say that I'm trained in a far different regime of flight ops than the average civilian pilot. That's something most civilians can't understand simply because they haven't had the same training, that's all. It'd be the same with me trying to argue "what does a space shuttle pilot know better than me simply because he flies the space shuttle?"
I just think that sometimes mil guys buy into the "I'm a better pilot than you because I'm military-trained" a little more than is appropriate, and I'm not sure this isn't one of those times.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say that. I would say that I'm trained in a far different regime of flight ops than the average civilian pilot. That's something most civilians can't understand simply because they haven't had the same training, that's all. It'd be the same with me trying to argue "what does a space shuttle pilot know better than me simply because he flies the space shuttle?"
aloft
New Member
Perhaps, but let's also keep in mind that not all military pilot training is the same. You're also trained for a far different regime of flight ops than will my buddy headed for T-44s, who will likely never fly a jet of any type in his career. Formation in T-38s doing 400 kts is a far cry from formation in T-6s doing 140 kts, wouldn't you agree? When all is said and done, his UPT experience will likely bear little resemblance to yours. So who's the better pilot?
Why do you keep bringing up the "better pilot" schtick? Nobody else said anything about being *better*, they only gave some warnings about being properly trained before attempting formation flight.
[ QUOTE ]
Formation in T-38s doing 400 kts is a far cry from formation in T-6s doing 140 kts, wouldn't you agree?
[/ QUOTE ] Why would there be that much difference? In both cases the primary safety requirement is keeping the planes from swapping parts, and it is the *relative* velocity that counts, not the absolute velocity. A 172 (or a T-6) can move sideways or up or down 20 feet almost as quickly as a T-38 or F-15, at least when those movements are unintended, don't you think?
[ QUOTE ]
Formation in T-38s doing 400 kts is a far cry from formation in T-6s doing 140 kts, wouldn't you agree?
[/ QUOTE ] Why would there be that much difference? In both cases the primary safety requirement is keeping the planes from swapping parts, and it is the *relative* velocity that counts, not the absolute velocity. A 172 (or a T-6) can move sideways or up or down 20 feet almost as quickly as a T-38 or F-15, at least when those movements are unintended, don't you think?
Vingus
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but let's also keep in mind that not all military pilot training is the same. You're also trained for a far different regime of flight ops than will my buddy headed for T-44s, who will likely never fly a jet of any type in his career. Formation in T-38s doing 400 kts is a far cry from formation in T-6s doing 140 kts, wouldn't you agree? When all is said and done, his UPT experience will likely bear little resemblance to yours. So who's the better pilot?
[/ QUOTE ]
BTW, formation in a T-37 is in the airspeed range of 120 - 250 KIAS. It is up to 90 degrees of bank with 3-7 foot wingtip clearance. We also fly an exercise called extended trail, where we fly at 800-1000' in a 45 degree cone off the tail, but fully maneuvering up to 120 degrees of bank. Don't even think about slighting the non-T-38 guys.
Perhaps, but let's also keep in mind that not all military pilot training is the same. You're also trained for a far different regime of flight ops than will my buddy headed for T-44s, who will likely never fly a jet of any type in his career. Formation in T-38s doing 400 kts is a far cry from formation in T-6s doing 140 kts, wouldn't you agree? When all is said and done, his UPT experience will likely bear little resemblance to yours. So who's the better pilot?
[/ QUOTE ]
BTW, formation in a T-37 is in the airspeed range of 120 - 250 KIAS. It is up to 90 degrees of bank with 3-7 foot wingtip clearance. We also fly an exercise called extended trail, where we fly at 800-1000' in a 45 degree cone off the tail, but fully maneuvering up to 120 degrees of bank. Don't even think about slighting the non-T-38 guys.