Section landing?

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

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

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. :-)

"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

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

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?

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

"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...

"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?

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