? on bomber formation

Stoney · **Posted:** Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:58 pm

Looking at the A-20 & B-25 threads made me remember that we flew stacked up in Catch 22 because two of Tallman's pilots had flown the B-25 in the military and they said that's how it was done. My ? is why? when you turn you put the inside wingman in a bad position i.e. he looses sight of lead. So what's the answer?

Dave Hadfield · **Joined:** Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:31 pm **Posts:** 1672

Maneuvering a formation around takes some organization and planning. It's normal to have one wingman on the inside of a turn when flying as an element of 2, or in a finger 4 (with 3 and 4 on the outside of the turn). Everyone turns in-the-same-plane, so that the inside guy is down and the outside guys are up. Everybody can see Lead.

More numbers than that and Lead usually moves them over to the outside. This is done by hand-signals or radio.

Or you can do flat formation turns, but in that case everyone has to be outside of Lead.

The inside guy, #2 in modern systems (F.A.S.T.), would never be stacked up for the reason you mention.

Can you find a clip, so that we can see what you mean exactly?

Dave

Stoney · **Posted:** Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:46 am

I use to be FAST check pilot so I know about that, but my ? was about the pix in the A-20 & B-25 threads. Please re-read my ?

Ken · **Posted:** Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:53 am

Stoney,

I don't know. I've flown in some very large C-130 formations and can appreciate the challenge. I did do some searching on the web. Although you were specifically asking about A-20 & B-25, here's some good info on the B-17 box:

http://www.303rdbg.com/formation.html

It takes a minute to digest the 1943 geometry depicted. The lead element has 6 planes, all stacked down from their lead. The high sq is essentially stacked up from their lead, while the low sq is the opposite; they are made up of 7 planes each. I would assume that keeping the high & low leads in a position to see formation Lead is the key ... and the side view shows how the whole affair is staggered back in arrowhead fashion.

The big threats (in my mind) are 1) wake turbulence, which is seldom mentioned in history 2) being hit by bombs from above, which we know happened at times and 3) difficulty in turning, which, as you mentioned is a trick, however, given the size of this formation, and a rough estimate that the high/low leads are 350-400'+ away from Lead, keeping him in sight was doable. I suspect that Lead was bank angle limited and tried hard to keep his turns per the briefing ... and that things could get goofed up quick if he was forced to improvise or when clouds were encountered. Interestingly, the top view illustrates that high & low leads are the same distance from Lead, despite their stack height, so the amount of speed loss or gain required to stay inside/outside a turn would be the same whether you were on the high or low side - only the "picture" out the window would vary.

This link shows that B-25s of the 340th BG in the Med flew in 6-ship boxes. I assume there was stacking up & down as in the B-17 example:

http://www.reddog1944.com/340th%20BG%20 ... m#missions

http://57thbombwing.com/gallery2/main.p ... emId=35666

There are also some great pictures of the 345th BG in the Pacific in the B-25 photo thread on WIX right now showing a downward stack.

And finally, this link, which if you like 340th B-25's, is gold:

http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/page.html

So, I didn't fly in WWII, but it looks like there was stacking in both directions and that the perspective in period photos has much to do with the location of the photographer. No matter how you slice it, I assume it was some challenging flying - just another reason they were the greatest generation.

Ken

Scott 'Gunny' Perdue · **Posted:** Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:01 am

Stoney wrote:

Looking at the A-20 & B-25 threads made me remember that we flew stacked up in Catch 22 because two of Tallman's pilots had flown the B-25 in the military and they said that's how it was done. My ? is why? when you turn you put the inside wingman in a bad position i.e. he looses sight of lead. So what's the answer?

I did my masters thesis on the ETO operations and to my memory it seems like the B-17s and B-24s did largely the same thing.... primarily in 3 ship Vics and squadron groups of Vics, then high and low squadrons..... Looking at the courses they never made large turns as a formed group (nothing like what the Fighters would do) and it seems to me that the formation arrangement was more tactically oriented than administratively oriented. By that I mean Administratively speaks to maneuvering the formation over a set course, Tactically means gun coverage and bomb pattern interference--- you want to maximize the gunner's field of fire (and minimize his chances of hitting flight mates) as well as minimize the chances of having another airplane fly through your bomb pattern or wake.

This wake issue is not trivial. In small airplanes you can avoid it easily, in large ones you cannot. I've done photo shoots flying a large airplane behind another large airplane and flirted with the wake.... it is uncomfortable to say the least. You can develop rolling moments that are astonishing. When I led the next to last B-25 Vic in Doolittle 2010 the wake turbulence from previous flights was incredible... the only thing you could do is try and surf it on the high side. Watched the B-25 on my right wing get low in a turn and then drop like a stone with significant roll. When you are doing the B-25 rat race for an airshow (everyone following the leader) you surf the wake as well.... at extremely low level.... don't run out of aileron.

Anyway that's my two cents....

gunny

Stoney · **Posted:** Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:54 am

Gunny
That's more of an answer that i was looking for, speaking of turblance, try being #9 in a 16 ship mass takeoff, see the start of Catch 22

Stoney · **Posted:** Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:01 am

Getting ready for a 2 second brake release takeoff

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:11 am

Thanks Gunny, a lotta bang for the...ummm...errr... .02! :wink:

Scott 'Gunny' Perdue · **Posted:** Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:52 pm

Stoney wrote:

Gunny
That's more of an answer that i was looking for, speaking of turblance, try being #9 in a 16 ship mass takeoff, see the start of Catch 22

Yeah, I remember... saw ot a few months ago and thought of you.... that musta been a trip!

gunny

maxum96 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:01 pm

Stoney wrote:

Gunny
That's more of an answer that i was looking for, speaking of turblance, try being #9 in a 16 ship mass takeoff, see the start of Catch 22

Love that scene! Here's a link to it,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLMDIlxUa58

Stoney · **Posted:** Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:44 pm

I have always wondered which one of the 4 times we did that this is, probably all of them spliced together. The last time I was in #16 and had a prop gov failure, that beast will not taxi any way but straight on one engine.

Warbird Information Exchange

? on bomber formation

Who is online