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
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the aerodynamic principles that allow fighter jets to perform unconventional maneuvers, such as flying inverted and executing the cobra maneuver. Key factors include the angle of attack, thrust vectoring, and advanced flight control systems, which enable aircraft to maintain lift even in extreme conditions. The cobra maneuver, while visually impressive, is primarily a tactical move that can leave the aircraft vulnerable if not executed correctly. The MiG-29 and Su-27 are noted for their engineering that supports such maneuvers, contrasting with the F-18, which has software limitations to prevent airflow stall during similar actions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Aerodynamics principles, specifically lift generation and angle of attack
  • Understanding of thrust vectoring technology in modern aircraft
  • Familiarity with flight control systems, particularly fly-by-wire systems
  • Knowledge of combat maneuvering tactics in aerial dogfights
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mechanics of thrust vectoring in aircraft like the Su-27 and MiG-29
  • Explore advanced flight control systems and their role in modern fighter jets
  • Study the physics behind the cobra maneuver and its tactical applications
  • Investigate the impact of angle of attack on aircraft performance in various flight conditions
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, military pilots, aviation enthusiasts, and anyone interested in the dynamics of fighter jet maneuvers and aerodynamics.

  • #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