Unconventional Maneuvers of Fighter Jets: How Do They Defy Gravity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter banerjeerupak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Aircraft
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the unconventional maneuvers of fighter jets, particularly focusing on how these aircraft can perform actions such as flying upside down and executing the cobra maneuver, while seemingly defying the principles of aerodynamics and gravity. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects of flight mechanics, practical applications in combat scenarios, and the engineering behind modern fighter jets.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the aerofoil design of aircraft wings generates lift by allowing air to move faster over the upper surface, but question how this applies to inverted flight.
  • Others explain that the angle of attack plays a crucial role in maintaining lift during inverted flight, suggesting that sufficient thrust and a higher angle of attack can keep the aircraft aloft.
  • One participant mentions thrust vectoring as a significant factor in extreme maneuvers, indicating that it alters the direction of propulsive force relative to the aircraft's axis.
  • Discussion includes the cobra maneuver, with some participants noting that it relies on momentum and the aircraft's ability to stall while still maintaining control through advanced flight control systems.
  • Several contributions highlight the limitations of flight control systems, with some arguing that they are essential for modern fighter jets, while others express skepticism about their necessity in extreme maneuvers.
  • Participants discuss the tactical implications of the cobra maneuver, suggesting it is useful in specific situations but also carries risks, such as energy loss and vulnerability after execution.
  • Technical details are shared regarding the airflow management in specific aircraft models, like the MiG-29 and Su-27, which may allow for maneuvers that could stall other jets.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the effectiveness and practicality of the cobra maneuver, with some seeing it as a valuable tactic while others deem it largely impractical. There is no consensus on the overall utility of flight control systems versus pilot skill in executing extreme maneuvers.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the performance capabilities of specific aircraft and the implications of thrust vectoring remain speculative. The discussion also highlights the complexity of flight dynamics and the varying interpretations of maneuver effectiveness in combat scenarios.

  • #31
The X-29 also greatly reduced turbulence in the trans-sonic envelope. But by the time these experiments began, most fighter aircraft were already "negatively stable". AFAIK, the F-16 Falcon (first prototype flew in 1975, I believe) was the first fighter aircraft to have the center of gravity behind the center of rotation, and therefore the first aircraft that had to be flown by computer control, earning it its nickname; "the electric jet".
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
Fred, I didn't read your link, but looked at it. If memory serves, the pictures that you posted are the Northrope contribution, which was a modified F-20 Tiger Shark (which was itself a modified F-5 Freedom Fighter). General Dynamics had a similar beast, which was essentially an F-16 with the wings on backwards. Grumman had one that was 'purpose-built' from the ground up, but I can't remember much about it.
 
  • #33
DaveC426913 said:
historically, designers had always worked towards greater stability in aircraft, making them easier to control. But stability is the antithesis of manouverability, since craft that is very stable will fight rapid changes in flight direction.

Is this basically right?

The engineering is right, though the history is a bit off. Some of the first people to realize that stability and manouverability opposed each other were the Wright brothers. By design, their planes required constant human control input for stability.

Not all the early designs got the stability/manouverability balance right. The (in)famous "Flying Flea" (designed 1930 and possibly the first home-build aircraft kit) was unfortunately very stable in the stalled configuration. The control surfaces were sitting in the stalled airflow, which was not a good design concept. Few pilots ever succeeded in recovering from a stall :eek:
 
  • #34
Danger said:
Fred, I didn't read your link, but looked at it. If memory serves, the pictures that you posted are the Northrope contribution, which was a modified F-20 Tiger Shark (which was itself a modified F-5 Freedom Fighter). General Dynamics had a similar beast, which was essentially an F-16 with the wings on backwards. Grumman had one that was 'purpose-built' from the ground up, but I can't remember much about it.
I'm drawing a total blank on the F-16 version. Do you have any links? The only modified test version of an F-16 that I can recall is the delta wing version, the XL.
 
  • #36
Thanks for the link, Cyrus. I was going by a Popular Science article that I read about 25 years ago. I never realized that the F-16 wasn't actually built.
 
  • #37
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Now that I see this picture I vaguely recall seeing it before. It seems like it was 25 years ago.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K