F7F Tigercat

[Ack-Ack]

I have never read of B-17 pilots using autopilot to maintain formation. I know B-17s were equipped with a rudimentary autopilot (mainly for bombing), but every account of formation flying in combat I have read about talked about manually flying the aircraft.

Can you cite one source of pilots using autopilot to maintain formation?

This from the Operations Officer 601st Squadron, 398th Bomb Group alludes that the lead aircraft in the formation used the autopilot.

When the lead pilot flew the aircraft on autopilot, he used the turn control for minor adjustments to the flight path of the aircraft. The autopilot provided a stable attitude and steady heading for the lead aircraft. Since the autopilot had no altitude sensor, adjustments had to be watchfully made to the plane’s altitude by the pilot referring to the altimeter on his instrument panel.

http://www.398th.org/Research/B17_AFCE.html

[GScholz]

Did bomber pilots use the autopilot while flying in formation (other than when bombardier was in control for the bomb run)?

Yes. The autopilot was not initially intended to be controlled by the bombardier. That was a modification added later on. Initially the pilot would control the aircraft during the bomb run following a Pilot Direction Indicator on his instrument panel that was controlled by the bomb sight.

"There was a major advance in bombing capability when the autopilot was modified to provide lateral control of the aircraft to the Norden bombsight for the bomb run The following paragraphs explain these later modifications to the pilot and bombardier’s “Turn Control” switch that were vitally needed for better control of the airplane."

GScholz, don't bother posting anything written after WWII, even if it is by a WWII bomber pilot saying "We used autopilots in formations in WWII" -- as that doesn't count, right? 

If it was the only source available, and purely anecdotal, I would agree.

[GScholz]

I have never read of B-17 pilots using autopilot to maintain formation. I know B-17s were equipped with a rudimentary autopilot (mainly for bombing), but every account of formation flying in combat I have read about talked about manually flying the aircraft.

Can you cite one source of pilots using autopilot to maintain formation?

I did.

[Oldman731]

Ack-ack's source referred to the lead ship using the autopilot, and this makes sense, because everyone had to form on the lead.  Scholz' sources are referring to the minute bombardier controls of the Norden sight, which were only intended to be used for the last few miles of the bomb run.  Flying a thousand miles over water, in any sort of formation, through whatever weather occurred between you and the destination, is quite a different thing.  When the P-82 was designed and first became operational, I'd be surprised if the autopilots of the day were capable of holding a precise enough course that you could get four planes to fly long distances and still stay within eyesight of each other while the pilots kicked back and relaxed.

But Earl might well know better, and I believe he flew P-82s.

- oldman

[GScholz]

"I used the automatic pilot on most flights and bomb runs."

Of course small adjustments would have to be made at times to stay in a loose formation, but it sure beats flying 2000 miles hands on.

Oldman, the "autopilots of the day" were advanced enough that a pilotless aircraft could fly hundreds of miles and bomb a city all on its own.

[GScholz]

And as I pointed out earlier the Germans also put autopilots in single engines fighters. Specifically the PKS 12 autopilot for "bad weather" versions of the 109, 190 and 152. Also Bf 110G and Ju88G night fighters had autopilots with fairly advanced features. Like using RDF direction finder to automatically circle a beacon. And the FuBl 2 "blind landing" system to automatically align the aircraft with the landing beam and using the FuG 101 radar altimeter to automatically manage the glide path. The pilot would only need to take control at the last minute to perform the touchdown.

[Crash Orange]

Oldman, the "autopilots of the day" were advanced enough that a pilotless aircraft could fly hundreds of miles and bomb a city all on its own.

The accuracy those guidance systems were able to achieve was measured in miles, and that was at a range of no more than 150 miles or so. If there had been one with the range to fly thousands of miles they'd have been lucky to hit within 100 miles of the target.

As for B-17s, the lead plane flying on autopilot with the rest of the group using manual control to maintain formation is not the same as a formation of planes all flying on autopilot. There was no .wingman autopilot function in real B-17s or P-51s. And as I'm sure you're aware, on bomb runs the procedure was for the bombardier in the lead plane to use his bombsight and the rest of the planes to maintain formation under the pilots' control and drop when they saw the lead plane's bombs drop. In tight combat boxes if they'd all been on autopilot and flying by the bombsight there would have been multiple collisions on every bomb run.

The F-82 may have been a dumb way to build a two-seater, but the need for two pilots per aircraft on very long missions was real.

[Brooke]

If it was the only source available, and purely anecdotal, I would agree.

I'm just needling you -- I think such sources provide evidence as well. 

[MiloMorai]

Back in the '70s did R&O on the 3 axis gyro unit for the autopilot used in the CF-5. To pass inspection after 4 hours, the azimuth deviation had to be less than 4 degrees.

[Wmaker]

The need for a human being in the cockpit is much more than just doing the stick-ruddering.

- Generally staying alert and ready for anything that might occur during a combat mission/change in plan

- Scanning the skies

- Monitoring the aircraft systems

- Communicating with the mission

- Keeping tabs on your location. What if something happens to your aircraft and you have to abort the mission turn back?

All very tiring when it continues hours on end. Tired pilot isn't a good pilot.

[GScholz]

I guess autopilot really is useless then. Wonder why just about every aircraft has one today...

[Wmaker]

I guess autopilot really is useless then. Wonder why just about every aircraft has one today...

Having autopilot replacing one pilot doesn't address any of the issues I brought up. The reason why F-82 had two pilots and how autopilots work today have nothing to do with each other.

[GScholz]

In WWII the U.S. was unique in that they (could afford to) provide aircraft with more than one pilot. Even long range bombers like the Lancaster typically had only one pilot.

[GScholz]

Having autopilot replacing one pilot doesn't address any of the issues I brought up. The reason why F-82 had two pilots and how autopilots work today have nothing to do with each other.

So an autopilot wouldn't help reduce pilot fatigue?

[Wmaker]

In WWII the U.S. was unique in that they (could afford to) provide aircraft with more than one pilot. Even long range bombers like the Lancaster typically had only one pilot.

Yep, they could.

Doesn't change the notion that a 1940's autopilot = trained combat pilot is laughable.

Btw, haven't checked but I'd be very surprised if the F-82 didn't have an autopilot. P-47N had one. F-82 was designed for flying even longer and thus the two pilots.

So an autopilot wouldn't help reduce pilot fatigue?

Of course it would.