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
Fighter jets can perform unconventional maneuvers, such as flying upside down, due to the angle of attack and thrust, which allow them to generate lift even in non-standard orientations. The cobra maneuver, while visually impressive, is primarily a one-time tactic that can drain the aircraft's energy and leave it vulnerable if not executed perfectly. Modern fighter jets rely heavily on advanced flight control systems to manage these extreme maneuvers, as human pilots cannot handle the instability without assistance. The MiG-29 and Su-27 are noted for their ability to perform such maneuvers due to well-engineered intakes that prevent engine stalls during complex flight patterns. Overall, while these maneuvers can be useful in specific scenarios, they are not the primary focus in dogfighting tactics.
  • #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

Why is the U-2 nicknamed the Dragon Lady?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
Kerbal Space Program - Rocket Design Basics
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K