pkern@utcs.uucp (pkern) (02/02/86)
The recent tragedy and the following memorials have included some pictures of the Missing Man formation. This brought on the realization that that formation is one of the best forms of expressing loss. It's a non-verbal act which demonstrates the sense of loss better than most verbal eulogies (eg. this one). In this case, the action of the missing man heading straight up seems most appropriate.
wmartin@brl-smoke.UUCP (02/05/86)
There is something that has always confused me about the "missing man
formation" -- it always appears to me that there are *two* "missing"
planes in the formation. The way I've seen it, most recently, is that
there are four planes in a *partial* "V" formation, like this:
^
^ ^
^
And then the second one pulls off and away, leaving:
^
^
^
However, that still looks to me like TWO "missing " aircraft from what
should be:
^
^ ^
^ ^
I suppose there is some explanation, related to there being four aircraft
in some standard military unit, but it isn't clear to the general viewer.
I would think it would be more effective if they started off with the
five aircraft in a fully-formed "V", and then the second one split off,
leaving a clear single-craft gap.
Am I right in those layouts above? I've only seen this on TV, and the
angles of shots don't always give a clear view of the true formation.
Willjulian@riacs.UUCP (02/08/86)
> There is something that has always confused me about the "missing man > formation" -- it always appears to me that there are *two* "missing" > planes in the formation. The way I've seen it, most recently, is that > there are four planes in a *partial* "V" formation, like this: > > ^ > ^ ^ > ^ > > And then the second one pulls off and away, leaving: > > ^ > ^ > ^ > > However, that still looks to me like TWO "missing " aircraft from what > should be: > > ^ > ^ ^ > ^ ^ > > I suppose there is some explanation, related to there being four aircraft > in some standard military unit, but it isn't clear to the general viewer. > I would think it would be more effective if they started off with the > five aircraft in a fully-formed "V", and then the second one split off, > leaving a clear single-craft gap. > > Am I right in those layouts above? I've only seen this on TV, and the > angles of shots don't always give a clear view of the true formation. > > Will One standard four aircraft formation is "fingertip" (spread out your hand and see where the fingertips are). That's what is used for the "missing man" ceremony. -- "If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?" Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez (ARPA: julian@riacs) 415-694-6141 415-694-6363 (UUCP: decvax!decwrl!julian@riacs) RIACS - Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science
rll9466@wucec2.UUCP (Richard L. Lantz) (02/08/86)
The original formation is known by several names, but I'll call it
the "finger four"; you will note the similarity in the positioning
of the aircraft to the positioning of the tips of your 4 fingers.
The formation was developed by the Germans in Spain before WWII and
was very flexible because you could turn the entire formation with
out any of the planes having to adjust their throttles, etc (note that
the formation would come out flip-flopped). It provided may tactical
advantages and remained the standard for years. I believe only recently
have new formations been developed due to the high speeds of the modern
jets.
Anyway, you start with 4, take one away, and you have your missing man.
--
Rich Lantz rll9466@wucec2.UUCP
6060 Pershing Ave #204
St. Louis, MO 63112
(314) 725-3061james@alberta.UUCP (James Borynec) (02/12/86)
Fighters always travel in two's. This is because there is the leader (who usually shoots down the enemy) and the wingman (who protects the leaders tail). There would never be a flight of 5 fighters, as this would leave one man unprotected in a general melee. j. borynec