Section landing?

[Danny Deger]

What is the history of the term "section landing"? I flew for the Air Force
and we used the term formation landing. Is is a Navy term?

--
Danny Deger

NASA offered me $15,000 to take down my web site. Take a look and see why.
www.dannydeger.net

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Danny Deger wrote:
> What is the history of the term "section landing"? I flew for the Air
> Force and we used the term formation landing. Is is a Navy term?
>

Held over from the old days really. A section or element was the basic
fighting unit in either fluid two or fighting wing, or in the Navy a
loose deuce pair. It became common to refer to any pair of fighters
landing as a pair as a section; ie; section or element lead and a trailer.
From another post of yours; I'm interested in your comment about the F4
having not much P Factor. How do you have ANY P Factor with an F4?
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:36:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Danny Deger wrote:
>>> What is the history of the term "section landing"? I flew for the Air
>>> Force and we used the term formation landing. Is is a Navy term?
>>>
>> Held over from the old days really. A section or element was the basic
>> fighting unit in either fluid two or fighting wing, or in the Navy a
>> loose deuce pair. It became common to refer to any pair of fighters
>> landing as a pair as a section; ie; section or element lead and a trailer.
>> From another post of yours; I'm interested in your comment about the F4
>> having not much P Factor. How do you have ANY P Factor with an F4?
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Rotation of the earth?

Coriolis effect. :-)

[Danny Deger]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>> What is the history of the term "section landing"? I flew for the Air
>> Force and we used the term formation landing. Is is a Navy term?
>>
>
> Held over from the old days really. A section or element was the basic
> fighting unit in either fluid two or fighting wing, or in the Navy a loose
> deuce pair. It became common to refer to any pair of fighters landing as a
> pair as a section; ie; section or element lead and a trailer.
> From another post of yours; I'm interested in your comment about the F4
> having not much P Factor. How do you have ANY P Factor with an F4?
> Dudley Henriques

I was speaking a bit tongue and cheek about the p-factor. It has none. I
should a put a :-) after the statement.

But it really does have very little yaw engine out. Engine out in a light
twin is probably harder to handle than if an F-4.

In the modern day Air Force we call a two ship formation an element. Any
Navy guys out there. Do y'all call it a section.

Danny Deger

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Danny Deger wrote:

> I was speaking a bit tongue and cheek about the p-factor. It has none.
> I should a put a :-) after the statement.
>
> But it really does have very little yaw engine out. Engine out in a
> light twin is probably harder to handle than if an F-4.
>
> In the modern day Air Force we call a two ship formation an element.
> Any Navy guys out there. Do y'all call it a section.
>
> Danny Deger

I get caught myself every time I forget that damn smilie thinge :-))

I'm not a Naval Aviator but I've done quite a lot of energy
maneuverability research with them flying T38's and have a few hours in
the F14 doing ACM.
Section is the common term used in the Navy for an element pair whether
in fighting wing or double attack spread formation which is the old
loose deuce section. The section in DA can be split between lead and the
wing as to who is engaged at any instant in time.
I've been away from the military end of things for some time now but I
believe section is still the term used as far back as fighter lead in
for a basic pair.
Dudley Henriques

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Danny Deger wrote:
>
> > I was speaking a bit tongue and cheek about the p-factor. It has none.
> > I should a put a :-) after the statement.
> >
> > But it really does have very little yaw engine out. Engine out in a
> > light twin is probably harder to handle than if an F-4.
> >
> > In the modern day Air Force we call a two ship formation an element.
> > Any Navy guys out there. Do y'all call it a section.
> >
> > Danny Deger
>
> I get caught myself every time I forget that damn smilie thinge :-))
>
> I'm not a Naval Aviator but I've done quite a lot of energy
> maneuverability research with them flying T38's and have a few hours in
> the F14 doing ACM.
> Section is the common term used in the Navy for an element pair whether
> in fighting wing or double attack spread formation which is the old
> loose deuce section. The section in DA can be split between lead and the
> wing as to who is engaged at any instant in time.
> I've been away from the military end of things for some time now but I
> believe section is still the term used as far back as fighter lead in
> for a basic pair.
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley:

Ever run across Scott MacLeod?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Danny Deger wrote:
>>
>>> I was speaking a bit tongue and cheek about the p-factor. It has none.
>>> I should a put a :-) after the statement.
>>>
>>> But it really does have very little yaw engine out. Engine out in a
>>> light twin is probably harder to handle than if an F-4.
>>>
>>> In the modern day Air Force we call a two ship formation an element.
>>> Any Navy guys out there. Do y'all call it a section.
>>>
>>> Danny Deger
>> I get caught myself every time I forget that damn smilie thinge :-))
>>
>> I'm not a Naval Aviator but I've done quite a lot of energy
>> maneuverability research with them flying T38's and have a few hours in
>> the F14 doing ACM.
>> Section is the common term used in the Navy for an element pair whether
>> in fighting wing or double attack spread formation which is the old
>> loose deuce section. The section in DA can be split between lead and the
>> wing as to who is engaged at any instant in time.
>> I've been away from the military end of things for some time now but I
>> believe section is still the term used as far back as fighter lead in
>> for a basic pair.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley:
>
> Ever run across Scott MacLeod?

Can't honestly say that I have Orval. Should I know him from somewhere?
DH

[Blueskies]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message ...
> What is the history of the term "section landing"? I flew for the Air Force and we used the term formation landing.
> Is is a Navy term?
>
> --
> Danny Deger
>
> NASA offered me $15,000 to take down my web site. Take a look and see why.
> www.dannydeger.net

The Blue Angels do the 'section roll'... 5 and 6 together.. Never noticed the term until after the recent discussions
here...

[Danny Deger]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>
snip
> I'm not a Naval Aviator but I've done quite a lot of energy
> maneuverability research with them flying T38's and have a few hours in
> the F14 doing ACM.
> Section is the common term used in the Navy for an element pair whether in
> fighting wing or double attack spread formation which is the old loose
> deuce section. The section in DA can be split between lead and the wing as
> to who is engaged at any instant in time.

Is DA line abreast about 6,000 feet apart? We called this "tactical"
formation in the Air Force and we used it 99% of the time when egaging an
enemy. Like you said, number 2 is just as likely as number 1 to become the
primary offensive guy post merge.

Nuke strike was single ship, so we didn't have to worry about all that
formation stuff on that mission.

Danny Deger

P.S. Did you get any stick time doing ACM in the F-14?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Danny Deger wrote:
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Danny Deger wrote:
>>
> snip
>> I'm not a Naval Aviator but I've done quite a lot of energy
>> maneuverability research with them flying T38's and have a few hours
>> in the F14 doing ACM.
>> Section is the common term used in the Navy for an element pair
>> whether in fighting wing or double attack spread formation which is
>> the old loose deuce section. The section in DA can be split between
>> lead and the wing as to who is engaged at any instant in time.
>
> Is DA line abreast about 6,000 feet apart? We called this "tactical"
> formation in the Air Force and we used it 99% of the time when egaging
> an enemy. Like you said, number 2 is just as likely as number 1 to
> become the primary offensive guy post merge.
>
> Nuke strike was single ship, so we didn't have to worry about all that
> formation stuff on that mission.
>
> Danny Deger
>
> P.S. Did you get any stick time doing ACM in the F-14?



Double attack is just another name for loose deuce. Formation changes
between the engaged and free fighter are common and position is usually
held by yo yo'ing high or low on the call into or away from lead. Your
AF counterpart would be fluid two or fluid four.
Never flown the F4, but the lateral separation sounds about right. It's
usually a consideration of turn radius and lead would usually have the
section a little above corner to account for snatch factor in a switch.
Double Attack I think works much better for the wingman than fighting
wing where if lead suddenly pulls max allowable g the trailer can be
sucked in trail. In double attack, the trailer yo yo's and either goes
high or low maintaining position.

On the Turkey; No, the Navy was smart enough to stick my butt in the
back. Being a civilian, even a fair stick with a fighter just ain't
enough to get stick time in the Turkey.
The T38 on the other hand was all mine to do with as I wished. Had the
Dash 1 for a week and they gave me the front seat; no problem.
To tell you the truth, I liked it that way. The Natops on the Turkey is
6 inches wide. The Talon was a piece of cake. Loved flying that airplane.
Dudley Henriques

[Danny Deger]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Danny Deger wrote:
>>>
>> snip
>>> I'm not a Naval Aviator but I've done quite a lot of energy
>>> maneuverability research with them flying T38's and have a few hours in
>>> the F14 doing ACM.
>>> Section is the common term used in the Navy for an element pair whether
>>> in fighting wing or double attack spread formation which is the old
>>> loose deuce section. The section in DA can be split between lead and the
>>> wing as to who is engaged at any instant in time.
>>
>> Is DA line abreast about 6,000 feet apart? We called this "tactical"
>> formation in the Air Force and we used it 99% of the time when egaging an
>> enemy. Like you said, number 2 is just as likely as number 1 to become
>> the primary offensive guy post merge.
>>
>> Nuke strike was single ship, so we didn't have to worry about all that
>> formation stuff on that mission.
>>
>> Danny Deger
>>
>> P.S. Did you get any stick time doing ACM in the F-14?
>
>
>
> Double attack is just another name for loose deuce. Formation changes
> between the engaged and free fighter are common and position is usually
> held by yo yo'ing high or low on the call into or away from lead. Your AF
> counterpart would be fluid two or fluid four.
> Never flown the F4, but the lateral separation sounds about right. It's
> usually a consideration of turn radius and lead would usually have the
> section a little above corner to account for snatch factor in a switch.
> Double Attack I think works much better for the wingman than fighting wing
> where if lead suddenly pulls max allowable g the trailer can be sucked in
> trail. In double attack, the trailer yo yo's and either goes high or low
> maintaining position.

Sounds like you were definitely working with 100% air-to-air guys. We were
air-to-ground and got to fly our 6 air-to-air sorties a half and not much
more. We were tail only in a close fight, because the Air Force would not
buy the Navy version of the all aspect AIM-9 with the bottle in the missile
and wouldn't mod our pylons to put the bottle in the pylons. Tail only in a
F-4 really sucks when doing DACM against an all aspect F-14, 15, or 16 :-)
We could throw a couple of AIM-7s in before the merge, but were seriously
outclassed in the close-in turning fight. I developed a tactic custom made
for tail only fighting. It worked well, but I couldn't get other F-4
drivers interested in it. Download a free copy of my book from my web site
and you can read about it in detail. I would like your opinion of it.
www.dannydeger.net

Danny Deger

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

At least they finally gave you guys a gun pod. If I remember right, the
first issue on that damn thing was a cold eye bore sight with no radar
ranging at all (just a WAG for gravity drop, trajectory shift and target
aspect angle. Later on in SEA, didn't you get a linked pod to the sight
for a better tracking solution? I think a few of your guys managed to
nail a few Mig 21's and 17's with that pod. Damn good shooting I'd say,
even if they did have to drive on in and sit in the 6 to get the shot.
:-)
Probably long to medium range shooting I would imagine. The Mig 21 could
drag an F4 down below corner in a turn faster than crap :-))
I'll give the book a shot, but I just had Cataract surgery and am
waiting for new glasses. Right now I'm a bit blind as a bat for reading.
Dudley Henriques

Danny Deger wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Danny Deger wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Danny Deger wrote:
>>>>
>>> snip
>>>> I'm not a Naval Aviator but I've done quite a lot of energy
>>>> maneuverability research with them flying T38's and have a few hours
>>>> in the F14 doing ACM.
>>>> Section is the common term used in the Navy for an element pair
>>>> whether in fighting wing or double attack spread formation which is
>>>> the old loose deuce section. The section in DA can be split between
>>>> lead and the wing as to who is engaged at any instant in time.
>>>
>>> Is DA line abreast about 6,000 feet apart? We called this "tactical"
>>> formation in the Air Force and we used it 99% of the time when
>>> egaging an enemy. Like you said, number 2 is just as likely as
>>> number 1 to become the primary offensive guy post merge.
>>>
>>> Nuke strike was single ship, so we didn't have to worry about all
>>> that formation stuff on that mission.
>>>
>>> Danny Deger
>>>
>>> P.S. Did you get any stick time doing ACM in the F-14?
>>
>>
>>
>> Double attack is just another name for loose deuce. Formation changes
>> between the engaged and free fighter are common and position is
>> usually held by yo yo'ing high or low on the call into or away from
>> lead. Your AF counterpart would be fluid two or fluid four.
>> Never flown the F4, but the lateral separation sounds about right.
>> It's usually a consideration of turn radius and lead would usually
>> have the section a little above corner to account for snatch factor in
>> a switch.
>> Double Attack I think works much better for the wingman than fighting
>> wing where if lead suddenly pulls max allowable g the trailer can be
>> sucked in trail. In double attack, the trailer yo yo's and either goes
>> high or low maintaining position.
>
> Sounds like you were definitely working with 100% air-to-air guys. We
> were air-to-ground and got to fly our 6 air-to-air sorties a half and
> not much more. We were tail only in a close fight, because the Air
> Force would not buy the Navy version of the all aspect AIM-9 with the
> bottle in the missile and wouldn't mod our pylons to put the bottle in
> the pylons. Tail only in a F-4 really sucks when doing DACM against an
> all aspect F-14, 15, or 16 :-) We could throw a couple of AIM-7s in
> before the merge, but were seriously outclassed in the close-in turning
> fight. I developed a tactic custom made for tail only fighting. It
> worked well, but I couldn't get other F-4 drivers interested in it.
> Download a free copy of my book from my web site and you can read about
> it in detail. I would like your opinion of it. www.dannydeger.net
>
> Danny Deger
>
>

[Danny Deger]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> At least they finally gave you guys a gun pod. If I remember right, the
> first issue on that damn thing was a cold eye bore sight with no radar
> ranging at all (just a WAG for gravity drop, trajectory shift and target
> aspect angle.

Never heard of having a gun pod without a lead computing sight. Might have
happened though. I'm not old enough for a 'nam tour. I flew the F-4D in
training which had no internal gun -- only a pod. But it had a lead
computing sight that was tied into the radar. Operationally I flew the E
that had an internal gun.

Hope you enjoy the book. I think you will. I have lots of good flying
stories in it.

Danny Deger

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Danny Deger wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At least they finally gave you guys a gun pod. If I remember right,
>> the first issue on that damn thing was a cold eye bore sight with no
>> radar ranging at all (just a WAG for gravity drop, trajectory shift
>> and target aspect angle.
>
> Never heard of having a gun pod without a lead computing sight. Might
> have happened though. I'm not old enough for a 'nam tour. I flew the
> F-4D in training which had no internal gun -- only a pod. But it had a
> lead computing sight that was tied into the radar. Operationally I flew
> the E that had an internal gun.
>
> Hope you enjoy the book. I think you will. I have lots of good flying
> stories in it.
>
> Danny Deger
>

Take care,
check six.
DH

[John[_1_]]

>
> Take care,
> check six.
> DH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dudley,

You take care of yourself as well. I have always enjoyed your posts.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery from your surgery.

John

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Thank you John. Appreciate it.
Dudley

John wrote:
>> Take care,
>> check six.
>> DH- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Dudley,
>
> You take care of yourself as well. I have always enjoyed your posts.
> Best wishes for a speedy recovery from your surgery.
>
> John
>

[Paul Riley]

Hey Dudley,

Looks like I missed something, been away for awhile.

In any event, hope all is well and recovery is going well. I still say old
age is not for the young, they could not handle it!! :-))))))))

Paul (just turned 72--and counting)



"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you John. Appreciate it.
> Dudley
>
> John wrote:
>>> Take care,
>>> check six.
>>> DH- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Dudley,
>>
>> You take care of yourself as well. I have always enjoyed your posts.
>> Best wishes for a speedy recovery from your surgery.
>>
>> John
>>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Hi Paul;
What I always say is that it's a shame youth is wasted on such young
people :-)))

Thanks for the support. Back surgery hanging in there so far and
cataract surgery ok as well.
It's tough to get old isn't it? :-))
Dudley

Paul Riley wrote:
> Hey Dudley,
>
> Looks like I missed something, been away for awhile.
>
> In any event, hope all is well and recovery is going well. I still say old
> age is not for the young, they could not handle it!! :-))))))))
>
> Paul (just turned 72--and counting)
>
>
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thank you John. Appreciate it.
>> Dudley
>>
>> John wrote:
>>>> Take care,
>>>> check six.
>>>> DH- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Dudley,
>>>
>>> You take care of yourself as well. I have always enjoyed your posts.
>>> Best wishes for a speedy recovery from your surgery.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>
>