I’ve always wondered how a wingman protected his leader, without in the process being shot down himself by the very enemy he was supposed to be looking for.
I’ve read various articles over the years of how the wingman would not commit to battle but would instead, ‘stick’ to his leader. How did he protect the No1? Did he maintain a lateral distance in order to rubberneck his leaders 6? If so, could he easily follow his No1 if he had suddenly peeled off to attack? And if he did follow him into the attack, would he have his hands full just remaining with his No1, with little time to look in his mirror?
Questions, questions (inspired by USAF P47/P51B wingman article, Flypast, Jan 03). Answers from pilots, tacticians, historians, enthusiasts, armchair warriors, or anyone, gratefully received 🙂
“Don’t think, don’t just look, SEARCH FOR THE *******S!…” etc etc
By: Seafuryfan - 18th October 2004 at 23:43
Yes Dazdaman, that’s why I was a bit puzzled about the potential lack of lookout when the wingman has his hands full following the leader.
Thanks Steve, I was hoping you might contribute 😉 Yes, I’m used to covering my oppos 6 from the cabin when our eggbeaters are in tac formation – happy with the cross-cover it provides.
You’ve put the job into it’s wartime context allright.
Papa Lima – you’ll have viewed the ‘models’ thread for the best glue stories 🙂
By: srpatterson - 18th October 2004 at 22:34
Formation flying is a contract. Lead’s job is to put weapons on the enemy. The wingman’s contract with lead is to be in position, and to protect his flank and stern. A good wingman stays with his leader, regardless of g’s or bank angle or the sun or a swarm of ME-109s diving on the formation. Period. That’s his purpose. Live long enough and you get to be a lead. Leave your leader alone in the sky and you might find yourself in a trench with a rifle.
TTP is correct that flights would spread out, ie a tactical spread, in fingertip or echelon formation. Close formation flying has very little value, except for penetrating weather and looking good to the folks on the ground. The problem is that when you’re flying close formation you can’t be scanning the sky, helping to look for bad guys. Hence, 4 pairs of eyes are better than one. The same holds true today. Nice close formation around the airport for arrival and departure, but spread everyone out to a loose “route” formation in between, and have everyone look for traffic, scan instruments, etc. During combat sorties, in a tactical formation, the wingman would maneuver in a piece of sky, and if the formation was attacked they would maneuver to put their guns on the enemy, but the idea was to do this while staying with lead, at least as a two ship element.
Flying loose formation is harder than flying close formation, as it’s more difficult to notice relative changes in position. If you’re in a route formation the guy on the outside of the turn has a much larger circle, and must compensate with power to not fall behind (getting sucked).
Hope this helps.
By: DazDaMan - 18th October 2004 at 22:31
You only need to read some of the memoirs of fighter pilots to see that wingmen would cling to their leaders, even when in a scrap.
By: Papa Lima - 18th October 2004 at 22:27
Seafuryfan, isn’t this where the well-known phrase “stick to me like glue” comes into effect?
By: Seafuryfan - 18th October 2004 at 21:48
Thanks for that TTP. I thought that was the case. would the cover continue even if the leader got into a high ‘g’ dogfight?
By: TTP - 18th October 2004 at 02:52
The wingman would serve as the eyes of the formation, scanning the sky around the lead (shooter) Basically the lead was the shooter, so he could concentrate on aiming and shooting, while his wingman would protect his flanks. You may be having a hard time understanding the concept because If you watch too many hollywood movies the wingmen are flying a very tight formation with lead. In reality the wingman flies a loose formation with lead which insures flexibility and safe clearance while manuevering.
Sign In
October 17, 2004 at 8:59 pm