Formating Phenoms

[deltahotel]

Saw a pair recovering to Cranwell yesterday - looked quite good. I thought the echelon looked a little less swept than other types but I guess that’s a function of whatever visual references they’re using.

Any insights into how it’s settling down as a ME trainer?

[Lordflasheart]

fourmating phenoms

...
Been tried before - twomating phenoms - Phenom

Still waiting for the SI.

whatever visual references they’re using.

Shouldn't they be on instrument's when they're that close ?

LFH

...

[57mm]

Bet they'd just got back from a tailchase....

[Ken Scott]

Still it’s better to be teaching formation to students on a (relatively) cheap training type rather than letting them have their first go on a frontline ME ac - a £160m A400M behind a £300m Voyager for example.

Now we we just have to persuade L3 to include a formation phase....

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by Lordflasheart

...
Shouldn't they be on instrument's when they're that close?..

What instruments would those be, then?

[VinRouge]

Originally Posted by Ken Scott

Still it’s better to be teaching formation to students on a (relatively) cheap training type rather than letting them have their first go on a frontline ME ac - a £160m A400M behind a £300m Voyager for example.

Now we we just have to persuade L3 to include a formation phase....

The lack of a speed brake on the Phenom, compared to the types mentioned, makes it somewhat of an interesting type to train formation (imho) The king air at least had 2 rotating speed brakes that mean that the anchors can get thrown out by closing the power levers. Not sure how you can manage this easily in the phenom.

As for type specific AAR, I would have thought a high fidelity sim would be the best platform to practice this on. Not sure what formating a biz jet, mindful that experienced pilots have already written one off, brings to the party.

[DCThumb]

When were speed brakes a pre-requisite for formation?
Not sure how the negative torque system worked on a king air, but on a Herc there was no airborne brake effect from the props....and on the K a flight engineer to nudge the power levers forward if you tried!

Back in the days of ‘proper’ flying training, everyone did quite a bit of formation at BFTS pre-streaming and there was none at METS. Once you got to a front line type, if you needed to tank, the basic muscle memory soon came back, but you still had to learn type specific techniques, such as using rudder rather than aileron for positioning in the Herc.

[VinRouge]

Originally Posted by DCThumb

When were speed brakes a pre-requisite for formation?
Not sure how the negative torque system worked on a king air, but on a Herc there was no airborne brake effect from the props....and on the K a flight engineer to nudge the power levers forward if you tried!

Back in the days of ‘proper’ flying training, everyone did quite a bit of formation at BFTS pre-streaming and there was none at METS. Once you got to a front line type, if you needed to tank, the basic muscle memory soon came back, but you still had to learn type specific techniques, such as using rudder rather than aileron for positioning in the Herc.

Why cant you learn muscle memory in a vastly cheaper high fidelity synthetic training solution, on the type you need to tank?

[Easy Street]

Originally Posted by VinRouge

Why cant you learn muscle memory in a vastly cheaper high fidelity synthetic training solution, on the type you need to tank?

Modelling of inertia, control force and control response (including throttle) would need to be absolutely perfect throughout the flight envelope for formation to be ‘trainable’ in the sim. The later generation of Tornado GR sim offered formation flying and it was OK for procedural aspects, and to an extent for tactical formations, but it was completely hopeless for close manoeuvring despite the flight model being fairly good in all other circumstances. In fact it was so bad that it would have been negative training to do it in the sim before doing it live, so we didn’t. I’d be interested to know whether the same applies to Typhoon and F35 sims as it seems unlikely that things would be any better in ‘heavy’ sims.

[VinRouge]

Originally Posted by Easy Street

Modelling of inertia, control force and control response (including throttle) would need to be absolutely perfect throughout the flight envelope for formation to be ‘trainable’ in the sim. The later generation of Tornado GR sim offered formation flying and it was OK for procedural aspects, and to an extent for tactical formations, but it was completely hopeless for close manoeuvring despite the flight model being fairly good in all other circumstances. In fact it was so bad that it would have been negative training to do it in the sim before doing it live, so we didn’t. I’d be interested to know whether the same applies to Typhoon and F35 sims as it seems unlikely that things would be any better in ‘heavy’ sims.

One would posit that the more modern sims are a cut above. Both C17 and C130J heavily rely upon synthetics for their tanking qualifications. They extensively model tanking including bow pressure waves, tanking Flight Control Computer laws and the J sim even funkily simulates the static discharge between probe and drogue. Individual models are included for differing tanker types and the particular properties associated with each. Not sure about A400M, but when the capability comes, again synthetics will provide much of the required training, having experienced the fidelity of the sim.

Bearing in mind there are no twin stick F35, how are crews planning to train for AAR if not synthetically?

[beardy]

.
Bearing in mind there are no twin stick F35, how are crews planning to train for AAR if not synthetically?
​​​​​

Perhaps you missed the TV programme showing the F35 crews undertaking AAR training and qualification before bringing the aircraft to the UK.

[VinRouge]

Originally Posted by beardy

Perhaps you missed the TV programme showing the F35 crews undertaking AAR training and qualification before bringing the aircraft to the UK.

So the first time they did it in the aircraft, I take you are saying they didn’t do a minute of synthetic training in preparation? Practice breakout manoeuvres and emergency procedures, requiring specific aircraft handling? Train visual references for pre contact and contact position?

Or did they sign themselves off after reading the book and just cracking on in the airplane? The difference of course is that fast pointy mates will have done earlier formation training at BFT and AFT. Is this an issue for multi pilot types? I argue absolutely not. Synthetics are of ample quality to develop the required muscle memory required particularly for large aircraft. There is a big difference anyhow in flying a bit of line astern in a king air and plugging in for 20-30 mins in something much larger.

[Firestreak]

That’s possibly right Vin Rouge, just as we did in the real Lightning. No sims, just a briefing then off you go, solo. No probs.

[beardy]

. I take you are saying they didn’t do a minute of synthetic training in preparation? Practice breakout manoeuvres and emergency procedures, requiring specific aircraft handling? Train visual references for pre contact and contact position?

Or did they sign themselves off after reading the book and just cracking on in the airplane?

I'm not saying anything, just asking if you had seen the documentary. It was discussed quite widely here :

Fighter pilot
​​​​​​