Folks, this is clearly done during testing, and it's with an airframe equipped with the TF-30 engines. Those motors were good but they had some quirks, one of which was that they were sensitive to airflow disturbances in the intakes and they were also sensitive to rapid power changes. Pitching an F-14A past 90 degrees would induce engine intake disturbances that could cause one or both engines to flame out. The airframe itself is very much capable of performing high AoA maneuvers. Since maneuvers like this bleed energy, this wouldn't be a common combat maneuver because when you fight with jets, energy (speed) is life. Bleed that off too much against a competent fighter pilot and you'll die for your mistake. The newer GE F110 motors were the motors that the F14 should have had from the beginning. I would be surprised if the US Navy hadn't performed some very high AoA maneuvers during testing with the new engines. Remember that the new engines were also powerful enough to allow this airframe, designed and built largely in the 1970s, to SuperCruise before that really became a buzzword now. The F-14D model was an extremely capable platform. Why were these retired? Simple. Cost. The airframes were getting tired and the cost per flight hour was getting prohibitive. Once the Super Hornets hit the fleet, the Tomcat's days were numbered.
+Jeremy Hawk It wasn't that simple. What killed the F-14 was when the SecDef cancelled the program in 1989. 37 new F-14Ds were built between then and when the last one rolled out in 1992, just enough for about 3 squadrons. But, the vast majority of F-14s were older airframes. By the late 90s to early 2000s the average age of planes was probably over 15 years old. Some planes were over 20 years old.
Another main reason is there just twerent as many newer version cranking out as much as newer aircraft, and some of these newer aircraft had some combat capabilities the Tomcat simply didn't have. It's a minor reason, but a reason nonetheless
You lost me when you said "Those motors were good". They were NOT good. They were a horrible mismatch to the airframe. You have to say they were good...compared to what? My first flight with TF-30s, compressor stall on takeoff. Second flight, compressor stall with a 4 g symmetrical pull. The only good thing I can say about them is that they were pretty good on fuel consumption.
It’s called a high Alfa maneuver. Pugachev’s cobra is performed at low speed about 270kn and the nose of the plane tilted at +120 degrees. The Swedes also used to perform high Alfa maneuvers with their Saab 35 draken way back in 1955.
eloidor this is also similar to the RCAF's high speed viper maneuver which only can be pulled off in a select variety of jets. Specifically learned and practiced with the cf-18c hornet. This has a specific name in the tomcat due to the maneuver only being pulled off at low to medium air speed with the wingsweep out
It is not a Pugachev Cobra because like you said yourself, the maneuver was already used by the Swedish back in the 1950s, the Syrians in the Mig-21 from the early/mid 1960s onwards but the Russians only entered the game in the 80s. There is also no minimum AOA limit to this maneuver as long as it’s purpose is achieved which the Tomcat does by quickly “air braking” at some 80° AOA. Even several Iranian pilots describe using the “Cobra” in combat during the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s. on a regular basis.
The F-14D was quite an upgrade.. an even better radar than the original wich basically was the better fighter radar ever made by US until the F-22 came.. double pod IRST+TV camera.. modern HUD, MFDs, multirole capacity, it could even teorically fire AMRAAMs (i think they tested some from a F-14D) .. tought they never implemented that.. and then politics joined with maintenance costs.. The F-15E for example ..its esentuilly a F-15D with radar with AG modes (same as the F-15C/D with extra AG modes) , MFDs , multirole capacity and extra hardpoints.. the cell, wing and engines are the same as the F-15D (and F-15C/D could mount CFTs too).
Also, upgraded GE-110 turbofan engines with 10,000 lbs of additional thrust (32,000 lbs per engine). That gave F-14D a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. Also, all of the electronic avionics gave F-14D a glass cockpit.
30,000 lbs in over 0.9 Mach and in the over 10000 feet altitude .If security lets me , tell you in IRIAF what upgrade was installed in Parsian Cat Fleets,new Radar, strong engine more than F110-GE-400/100, AG capacity, new aim54c ( Fakor 90 with over 83 NM max range and over 58 NM optimum range for Target with highly maneuverability ), And very important systems like: most advance RWR/ECM/IFF systems that can detected any threat, Fighter with less than 0.4 square meter RCS, IR missile, Active homing missile,and... from over 60NM can alert to the RIO the threat vector, speed, altitude, And if I say more accurate, We made and changed RIO cockpits to the Advanced Electronics and Signal Processing Laboratory.The most effective Air supremacy that could shot down over 135 fighter Aircraft during Iran-iraq War include 2 Mig29A and 9 mig-25Foxbat and ...even 3 or 4 mig 23, at the same time with one Phoenix AIM-54A unit and out pilot also had a many record such as over 12 hour in cockpit for CAP mission with 8 time Air refueling during Operation Azhdar that F-14s played TOP cover Rolls to protect the ships caravans and keep avoid from air strike
Ben Peltola The F-18 didnt do the same job as the Tomcat.. yes the F-18E with the AESA radar upgrade and the AIM-120D has similar interception performance.. but the Tomcat had much much more range.. When the A-6 retired they had to use Tomcats to bomb in Afghanistan as they had the range to deliver the payloads.. the Hornets needed several refuels. And its a problem that cant be solved easily as the F-18 is evolved from a light fighter... the Tomcat was a heavy fighter and had lots of fuel room.. you would need to make a bigger F-18..wich they allready did with the SuperHornet but even that its not enought to cover the range of the A-6/F-14
Ben Peltola There was a F-22 naval proposal..with swing wings... but it was cancelled.. now they have the F-35C on the table.. aparently the F-35C might match the Tomcat range.. it stealth and has a supperb radar.. however it lacks the Tomcat speed and to maintain stealth only the internal bays can be used wich severely limits payload (increasing range incidentally)
I saw the other day a maneouver in the history channel "Dogfights" series of a pilot nicknamed "Mugs" in a F-4B .. he pulled a complete 360º backflip in a close dogfight puting his enemy in front of him.. That was awesome impressive and in a F-4..
A lot of poorly informed people in this post. the argument that this maneuver is "not a Cobra" maneuver is a moot point. The fact is that this type of maneuver(regardless of what name one may attach to it) is a high AoA pitch-up designed to rapidly decelerate the aircraft. the F-14 was able to reach and go beyond the 90 nose up attitude but the primary problem with this is that the PW TF30-P412/P414 engines were very sensitive and prone to compressor stalls with any significant air divergence in the intake as well as the 80% minimum RPM restriction. With this in mind, the Test Flights using this maneuver revealed that average to low time F-14A pilots should not attempt or be trained to perform this maneuver and that restriction became NATOPS standard for the F-14. Still, with the AFCS pitch and roll channels off, the F-14 could easily reach pitch/AoA of the SU-27 but one fact remains, the F-14 did this type of maneuver before the first SU-27 or Mig-29 were built and flying and even before the F-14, the SAAB 37 Draken could perform a similar maneuver with the "Superstall" technique.
Oh yes! One of my good friends flew the F-14 for 20 years during his career. He started off on the TF30-PW-414 engines before moving into the F-14A+(later re-designated F-14B). You could move the throttles on the GE F110 pretty much care free and afford a better latitude of maneuver envelope. If you've ever seen Capt. Dale Snodgrass fly his F-14B/D routines, it's pretty aggressive and he's obviously flying with the AFCS cut off.
Storm KILM Very jealous of your friend! Like many kids who had the best gift from their father - the moment where he says, "Son, let's sit down for a while. I want to show you a movie...called TOP GUN." - I grew up wanting to fly an F-14 Tomcat. I was 16 when they retired it for good, and I was devastated. I had a neighbor who went to the Naval Academy, and he attended a very highly-regarded prep school that was a brother school to my sister's high school (another highly-regarded prep school). I devoted my middle school dreams to going to that school (McCallie), and then I went. I believed that going there would get me my best chances to go to the Naval Academy, which in turn would get me my best chance at an aviator's slot. When they retired the Tomcat, the dreams all but died. Selfish, narcissistic? Sure, but it got me a great education (and I subsequently went to the University of Tennessee, which I loved). However, every so often, I catch myself daydreaming of being in the cockpit of my all time favorite jet. Cats rule, baby! ;)
Storm KILM But is a good point.. the F110s solved that problem.. but we dont see Tomcats doing theese maneovers in B/Ds... at least not that i can find on video.. its sad when you think how many folks would still be alive had the Tomcat began with the F110 (or even the F100 from the F-15 wich is pretty much same engine) instead of the TF30
Angus Gibson , No matter what you dream of being in life, you have to pursue it with no efforts spared. It's not at all selfish/narcissistic because the end game is that you find your place in this world which that skill you worked so hard to achieve(whether being a Pilot, Doctor, Teacher, etc) becomes and asset for the benefit of others. Being a Fighter Pilot, that's a super competitive endeavor and only the best will find their way into the cockpit of such aircraft. You have to be a bit cocky, aggressive, arrogant while at the same time possessing the intellect to know and master such a technical machine. That mindset is a necessity because those you'll fight against intend to kill you and everyone else if allowed to do so. Some might view a Fighter Pilot as a supreme contradiction, a person who wasted their intellect to do such an endeavor but in reality, anyone who does become one sets themselves apart from average people, they place themselves in harms way to help ensure the horror of War NEVER reaches those who live behind that safety net.
Well, modern radars tell if the target is friendly or unknown and some can even ID the aircraft if its coming straight at you and the radar can "see" the target engine. But unknown doesnt mean necesarily enemy, could be a civilian or could be an allied plane from other nation who doesnt use IFF transponder (like a UAV or small helicopters .. etc) Thats why the ROE requires many things before engaging and thats why AWACS and many other assets are in combat zones
It does make a very impressive airshow maneuver, but consider it as a carefully timed excursion from a Yo-Yo. You are both down below 300 kts trading turns and he nails a cobra. All of a sudden, he's at 135 knots just off your wingtip and you're making a good 250-300. Your options probably include going vertical or trying to accelerate out of the problem. Remember, in an A-A configuration, he can go vertical and accelerate as good as you can.
@AeroSharkTech i could not agree more.. I'm no fighter think tank, but the sheer amount of kinetic energy and airspeed lost doing this maneuver in combat would probably give your pursuer the chance to get the upper hand... if that pursuer is the raptor, I wouldn't doubt that it could be able to roll back into your six
No this is not a cobra, because this maneuver is called a tomcat, Naval Fighter Weapons School teaches a wide arrange of tactics at a wide arrange of flight envelopes, so there is no doubt this maneuver has been encountered long before the Russians believed they invented it. So it is no question as to why MiG and Sukhoi copied the F-14's nacelle fuselage design, as a matter of fact the Su-27 bears a striking resemblance to a fixed wing concept of the F-14 proposed by Grumman.
@JK JK1 One of the chief Sukhoi engineers said the Cobra maneuver is for school-aged idiots at air shows, with no practical value in combat. You're also incorrect about American aircraft unable to perform it. Baby Hornets can do it with no thrust vectoring, and the F-22 can do it in spades, then accelerate like no other while combat-configured. Try pulling this stunt with a combat-configured Su-27, Su-30, or Su-35S and watch what happens.
The Sukhoi's perform the Cobra maneuver at well below 'Va' (maneuvering speed). If it can't get an off-boresight IR missile shot, it's toast. Zero energy, and trying to regain precious airspeed to get back inside it's turn envelope. I don't see this as a tactic that would useful in combat. A zero energy state is not a spot any fighter pilot wants to be in; from the Spad to the modern F-22s and SU-30s.
@JK JK1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra In the case of the Su-27, the pilot initially disengages the angle of attack limiter of the plane, normally set at 26°.[1] This action also disengages the g limiter. After that the pilot pulls back on the stick hard. The aircraft reaches 90-120° angle of attack with a slight gain of altitude and a significant loss of speed.
@@r1100s www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/8a66ta/out_of_the_shadows_rnlaf_experiences_with_the/ Out Of The Shadows: RNLAF experiences with the F-35A - Combat Aircraft Magazine May 2018 Dutch F-35 Block 3F, "F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to within visual range manoeuvring'". nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/ More F-16 vs F-35 from Norwegian pilot. I quote _Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_ theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/ Norwegian F-35 Pilot claims F-35A can use high AoA for large air brake to reach high G minimum turn radius advantage speed range. Cobra air-brake can useful to reach high G minimum turn radius advantage speed range, but it can be misused.
One example was the F-4 / F-8 vs MIG-17s in Vietnam. The MIG-17 seriously overturned everything in the air.. but it was slow and it had poor power to weight ratio. F-4s and F-8s used their superior thrust to tackle the MIGs vertically where the MIG could not go.. thats why the MIG-21 was more dangerous despite not being as agile as the 17..it had way better thrust.
@vbs221 The Tomcat was doing stress maneuvers to test its AoA capabilities with the wings unswept. The intent was not to perform a cobra. There is a book, "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering" by R.L. Shaw, in which he stated that with the wings swept, the Tomcat can achieve AoA beyond 90 degrees.
Thanks for the info, its awesome. I was told shot ago that F-14 is doing simply a high a-a pull. Also the video is from the prototype F-14A wich had the troublesome TF-30 engines wich i guess dont like high a-a
Iran AM 4 TOMCAT made advantage upgraded the real reason why united states' of America didn't upgrade technology within the f-14 original version is outdated is the usa typical can't improve it's own society standards take for ex mig 31 it's actually an F-15 eagle only this was Sovjetunionen technology within most of what you hear about USA state saying the original f14 is outdated is BS ask china and Russia!
This wasn't an attempt at a Cobra or any other special maneuver. The aircraft shown is one of the original YF-14As with test equipment installed. The pilot is trying to induce a compressor stall and force the plane into a spin so they can test spin recovery techniques.
Guys were pulling off the cobra in the f18 only a couple of weeks after they saw a russian pilot do it. The stresses of repeated "cobras" caused cracking so top brass told the pilots too knock it off and limited the envelope....though the newer f18s aren't limited. The reason you don't see it is because it's "old hat" like the moonwalk dance move.
The F/A-18A-D teorically can do a cobra.. but acording to what i have been told the vertical rudders would probably snap since they were not designed to do that.. the F/A-18E/F corrected that problem and its capable of perform the cobra both aerodynamically and structurally
What is the obsession with the Cobra? When it's used in a air to air combat situation and shoots down an enemy fighter, then I'll understand. Right now I don't see any reason a pilot would use this in combat...unless they want to get shot out of the sky. The whole Cobra idolization has gotten out of control. The f-16 VISTA could do cobras, but it was considered useless in combat.
@@Dennis-ns1yx A russian pilot would use this maneauver right before an f16 pilot used his plane as a straffing rag. No pilot in his right mind would bleed off his energy just to see if the cobra really works. Not unless hes committing suicide.
The cobra love affair came because a BBC “anything Russia does is better” announcer saw ir at a Paris air show. A friend who was an F16 pilot called it the “last thing you do to die looking cool”
the Cobra has no practical use in air combat but its real purpose is to demonstrate an aircraft's extreme nose-pointing ability and pitch authority at low speeds, both of which are very very useful in a close in dogfight or stall recovery. technically Hornets could do Cobras too, its design has an exceptional stability at high alpha but of course the FCS won't allow it.
@AwesomeBeyond Well yea but the cobra requires a decrease in speed which leaves you vulnerable to gun fire, Also the F-22 shoots out cold air to reduce the exhaust heat of the engines.
@c4m3 Theorically it can .. but the FCS probably has no a function for it.. also i have seen interviews of Typhoon piltos where they said the Cobra is useless in actual combat so they dont use it. The Typhoon is a delta wing so it can turn really fast even at high speeds (tought bleeding a lot of energy)
Its described as a departure from controlled flight. there is many discussion going on about if that maneouver is possible.. last i readed was a USAF pilot who said it was but it was a hell risk of stalling the engines and not being able to recover the departure
@sparrowlt i have also learned that the pilots go to idle when performing the cobra its so that if an engine goes outthe plane doesnt get biserk. i dont think it affects the plane or what
Art Scholl, a stunt pilot, was tragically killed doing an inverted flat spin for this film to get the spinning scenery on film. His last transmissions, uttered at 3,000 and then 1,500 feet, were, "I've got a problem" and "I've really got a problem." It is speculated that camera equipment affixed to the plane altered its weight-and-balance envelope, making recovery from a flat spin (normally difficult in any case) impossible. The film is dedicated to his memory
@BRIANROX1 If im not mistaken.. engines in a SU-27 are arround 80% rpm during the cobra.. Even they have to add a bit of power at some point during the maneouver
@ZeeFrenchie jet turbines are monitored by % rpm of the max rpm. Where cars are monitored by total rpm (example: 2500 rpm , idle at 900rpm, max 7000rpm , etc) planes vary greatly from turbine to turbine so they are used by % , being 100% the max rated rpm when throttle is at max.. Idle in jets is usually between 60 and 70% rpm.. so in flight you work between idle and 100%
As my job I know it very well. Although apparently it's lookalike Cobra but it's a kind of other useful maneuvers by name last Ditch. At least in US Navy and we in Iranian Air Force know it by that name. The point is that cobra is for reach to maximum possible speed in minimum climb! But unlike it, Last Ditch is for reach to minimum possible speed in maximum climb. And many jets can not do Last Ditch. Sometimes it's very useful in dogfight as well as Cobra. For example if suddenly you find out enemy fighter is in your tail you can do it and with a little bit lucky you can change position and go to its tail. Off course it's just an option...
Actually, these were just High AOA manuevers for testing. The Russians made it into a maneuver for combat or airshows. This maneuver you see here is just for angel of attack purposes. I think the Su-27 does a better cobra though since the Su-27 doesn't gain altitude or lose altitude while performing it. I think Pugachev's cobra is really one of the first performed with no altitude gain or loss.
@@pickashole i watched today growling Rhino vs Tomcat video where shotguns pulls this on him and nearly gets him.. didnt knew Heatblur's tomcat could do that
@StiviGun1 While is true that the swedish did perform the cobra before the russians.. the russians never branded it as a creation of theirs.. its just that they popularized it by performing it with the MIG-29 and SU-27 in displays along the 80/90s. Its called Puchachiev's cobra because that was the test pilot that made it popular.. not the one who "invented" it
The capabilities and avionics in the first F-14 and F-15 derivatives are better than many 4th gen fighters. As far as I'm concerned they are still the first 4th gen fighters and the F-14 especially being the forerunner of many 4th gen fighter designs.
The two basic reasons that the Cobra is doable in MiG's and Su's are tolerance for inlet distortion from the engine and very clean exterior aerodynamics. The Russian engines and inlets are designed to tolerate an amazingly distorted airflow into the engine. With the F-100's and F-101s in F-15s and F-16s, the engine has a very real possibility of stalling at these flight attitudes. At low altitude and in the Cobra attitude, it would be a pronged aircraft! CMD D.F BALLARD VF-84 'VAMPIRE'
I'm Hungarian, so I could see the Hungarian MiG-29s doing te cobra manoeuvre. In this manner i have the bechmark, so I also think, this manoeuvre also could be a cobra. I also read somewhere, that the Sweedish Draken was the first aircraft that made a cobra...
Hasn't anyone seen the original Top Gun? It's the best part of the movie! Merlin: What are you doing? You're slowing down, you're slowing down! Maverick: I'm bringing him in closer, Merlin. Merlin: You're gonna do WHAT? Maverick: I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by. Merlin: Maverick, you big stud... Take me to bed or lose me forever. And they lived happily ever after.
MLU stands for "Mid Life Upgrade".. is an extensive upgrade that most military craft receive at some point.. In our case (and same as many others like Canada or Australia) we had F/A-18A .. they then at some point were upgrade to "MLU" meaning new avionics, improved radar,electronics,revised engines.. Like updating to a C model or beyond (C models also receive upgrades so MLU are up to the point when they are made), other example is the F-16A-MLU wich is comparable to F-16C
If you have a bogey on your six and closing fast, the cobra can make him overshoot. If it is a seasoned pilot he'll keep his distance and can perform a barrel roll to reposition him or herself to regain the six. One more option is that the cobra will increase the RCS and light up the scope like a Christmas tree or it will leave one open to guns.
@Buuub08 The F-16 is aerodinamically capable of doing a Cobra, but its not possible fue to the FCS limitations to avoid going out of control, even with the override it will not allow. Russian jets (Fulcrum and Flanker) pilots must push a button to disengage the angle of attack limiter to perform the cobra
The cobra was first done by Boyd and it was called "flat-plating the bird", what the Russians call the cobra and it was done by Boyd in the 50's in a Super Sabre. The russians were not the first to come up with the maneuver...
"I said that because someone had said that they were doing "thrust vectoring tests on early models of the Tomcat", or something along those lines." The Advanced Super Tomcat 21, which should be in the fleet and not the fail Hornet, had 3-D thrust vectoring, modern cockpit, lowered RCS etc.
I didnt made it up... it was stated that was a posibility.. modern missiles can fire with arcs of 60º .. The missiles would be of course IR.. IR dont need to "lock-up" in "emergency shots".. you point their warhead to the target and fire.. the missile will follow the heat or (more recently) the IR spectre of the fuel burning in the engines.. You can even do the same with the AMRAAM, you firw without lock and it goes "MAD DOG" , it seeks its own target and goes after.. without IFF
No. The enemy would get a return spike on their radar. It wouldn't get a spike from an attacking missile until the missile is halfway there and goes active using its own radar. Those bay doors don't stay open long. Maybe a few seconds? That means your radar lights up, you have to figure out what you're seeing on radar, then, IF you realize it's an enemy, you have to lock them up, get a good solution, then fire. Good luck with that.
Its funny how almost ALLm people got their comments wrong with the last phrass. As today ,US aircraft able to perform the cobra are the F-22 , the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F
IT still lacks power and range by far , specially compared to the F-14. With the new versions of the AMRAAM it can relativy replace the F-14+Phoenix combo and provide the USN with long range BVR. But it still lacks basic things like the long range TV-Cam, Tomcat pilots moved to SuperHornet complain about this because they cant visual-ID bogies at long range so in doubt situations they will have to close range voiding the advantages of the AMRAAM
heres the thing about pete mitchelle, if you buy the top gun dvd set that includes the filming and comments they mention him a lot and they show him flying in a real navy aircraft carrir on a plane that says pete mitchell on it, i think they also did a interview of him on there
And E/F model perhaps¿? As far as i know F-18s A-D models can perform the cobra but they "cant" do because it might rip the vertical stabilizers.. this structural problem was fixed in the E-F superhornet models so they can perform the Cobra without risk (the old Hornets problem is that the rudders are slightly angled and not designed to take air at 400K from bellow,maybe the old Hornet can take it but enginers say it wont.Problem is who would risk to prove that :D
There’s a video where F-104S pilot talk about dogfight with F-14, at low altitude. I don’t think they were at low speed because F-104 can’t fight at low speed. I think they was more than 380-400 kts. He told: f-14 opened wings, pull cloche and he was stop in air. I passed him and I became prey.
Ok.. I'm no fighter pilot... but I'm a physics student. And from wat I know of physics, you would need a TWR of over 1 to do any of the moves demonstrated by the Su-27 bak in 80s. Now, the F-22's TWR is 1.09 whereas the Su-35's is 1.10, and the MKI shares this figure. The F22 has a better wing loading, and the three are about tied in speed. And the cobra would easily trick a radar guided missile like the AIM-120D as well as a AIM-9X due to scattering of light and heat.
www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10659 Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." F-22's total thrust is 74,000 lbf. Wki source is not correct.
Vampire is right! In a flat spin the canopy would have significant forward forces on it (remember it is well forward of the AC cg), essentially it would tumble and yaw away from the axis of the spin. The ejection seat motion would be primarily be up and slightly back (6deg) as it leaves the rails, a litttle towards the spin axis. Trust me, this has been tested in real life.
Now what did the Flanker and Fulcrum take from 4th generation US fighter design? Easy: spaced & seperated podded engines (pioneered on F-14), wide lifting area body (F-14 again), and leading edge root extensions (F-16/YF-17/F/A-18). The F/A-18E/F with it's very large LERX and large area wing produce the necessary lift and energizing of air, enough to force the plane into a full Cobra past the 90 deg mark. With the excellent wing loading the transition back to level flight should be easy.
Actually, the first jet was the venerable F-100. Before that pilots were known to have gone to similiar extremes with aircraft like the P-38. The big difference that people miss is that the new Sukhois (and F-22) are stable enough to do it easily and at lower altitude. Aside from that, it's really nothing new.
@radekroni ALL those planes you name have stabillity controls (more like Alpha limiter in this case) , russians ,americans and europeans.. difference is that all russian planes have a switch to turn off and the rest usually dont.. The new F/A-18E/F has a switch somewhere to be able to do cobras.. and the F-22 and F-35 have a function built in the software to allow cobras when the pilot ask for it ..
@Buuub08 Sorry.. acording to the F/A-18A-D i mean "it CANT take it structurally".. i missed a "T" , that means that the plane should be able to do it, but the rudders would break-off because they are not capable ot taking the sudden change in airflow.. that problem was "fixed" in the newer F/A-18E/F and its capable of cobras, also aparently the FCS on the superhornets have been setup so it can perform it...tought i think its for displays and shows only
The cobra could be good in a merge. If your opponent is above you, and so perform a cobra that goes beyond 90 degrees, with modern missiles you could snap a missile shot as your opponent flys by, completely surprising them.
Nobody knows the thrust to weight yet. Nobody even knows the top speed yet. Thus far, everything is speculation based on "good math." the F-15 has thrust-weight of 1.15. One of the Raptor test pilots said that "even though the Raptor thrust-weight is less than the the F-15, it outclimbs the Eagle because the engines are so much more efficient." The only reason it is not official is because it is still secret.
This isn't quit the cobra. It is known as the "breakstand". Same principle except in a breakstand you're gaining altitude. When a cobra is properly executed, the aircraft's altitude remains unchanged. This actually negates the advantage of this type of maneuver, which is to drastically change your flight characteristics to confuse a radar guided missile. It would be better to quickly change altitude, among other things.
@Buuub08 There is no video of a standard F-16 doing a cobra. I said it was technically capable but it cant do it due to FCS limitations, the FCS should be reprogramed to allow a cobra, and as i said in the comments, the F/A-18A-D is also aerodynamically capable of doing a cobra but , apart from the FCS limit, enginers say it can take it structurally. The newer F/A-18E/F superhornet its cobra capable , as is the F-22 and F-35. The SAAB Draken also is, and theorically the Typhoon (not much known)
True.. also anoying to the Hornet comunity was the fact that aftter the retiring of the A-6 the F-14D was the longest range bomber the navy has and the only one capable of reaching far-in Afghan bomb sites..and it wasnt even born as a multirole fighter like the Hornet was. The Hornet is a great plane but its a light fighter.. the Russians developed the combo SU-27+MIG-29 as such duo, the navy should had done the same developing a longer range fighter to replace F14s.. maybe the incoming F-35?
The F14D could do all you say and then some! That was the Tomcat on steroids lol, are you serious? That could outturn most fighters even in the world today! Come on man read up on it with the upgraded avionics and the engines! That Jet was a beast.
I read somewhere that with the GE F110 engines the F-14D could match in dogfight a F-16C, obviously the Viper outmatchs the Tomcat in turn radious/turn rate but the Tomcat can climb/acelerate/brake waaay faster than the Viper, The F-16 has a AoA limit of some 25º (without the override :D )
@Vyppaaa11 Sorry but no they are not. F-16 block 50/52 are the mid 90s F-16 standard.. the F-16 is equiped with a fly by wire FCS computer wich has an AoA limiter wich doesnt allow to exceed certain AoA, so no cobra posible.. even when you switch the "pitch override" switch it wont allow a cobra without modification. The F-16 MAVT could do cobras but that was a research NASA aircradt with a modified FCS software
Check out video "Saab J35 Draken trainers doing Pugachev's Cobra Maneuver" The j-35 is a late sixties fighter. While older aircraft can't do a "superstall" or cobra at low speeds as well as a Su-37, it is still impressive.
that was definitely a pull of the stick.Whether other aerodynamic features/technologies were incorporated during that maneuver is something I don't know.It is possible, however.
"SU-27 is not based on F-14 or F-15.. " Yes the SU-27 is based off of the F-14, look the engine inlets, the pancake and the angle of the wings which, is the same as the F-14 when it is swept forward for better maneuvering. The MiG-29 incorporated the F-16/F/A-18 into the fuselage blending with the F-14, engine angles/pancake.
I definitely see a lot of F-14 inspiration in the design, but it doesn't mean it was stolen - the Russians are not the Chinese and they have a lot of pride in their aircraft. Sukhoi doesn't need to cheat. It's an aggressive fourth-gen fighter design that resembles several aircraft of that era. The F-14 was essentially the first of its generation and the Flanker (and Rafale, I guess) is the last of its generation.
@@VisibilityFoggy Sir, I highly recommend you start researching the Russian designs. The Soviets have flatout stolen numerous designs from the US, the B-29 and B-1B. The Tu-160 is an obvious copy of the B-1B, as is the Tu-4 of the B-29. The SU-27 is the first Russian aircraft with spread nacelle, not to mention the wing sweep, and other features are taken directly from the F-14. The Soviets, like the Chinese, have always trailed the US because they lack the finances for R&D.
But the F14-Tomcat actually can go very high AoA,the problem was not the plane itself,in fact!! the f14 was one of the best designs ever.the TF30 P412A was the nemesis off the plane.
in dogfight a cobra can make your opponent (at 6 o'clock) to overshoot .. because its a high angle of attack (AoA) manouvre and makes your plane to slow down really fast.. then, moving back to normal position you could be trailing your opponent .. Sorry for my bad english -.-"
The cobra is supposed to slow you down rapidly so an enemy at your 6 passes you putting you at their 6... but that's only good for 1v1. If you're engaging more then one enemy, using the cobra to allow one enemy at your tail to pass you will cause you to be missile bait for the other enemies.
Dunno.. the videos i saw of the Draken are quite identical to a cobra.. even more violent than the Sukhoi ones... and in the wikipedia the Draken is listed as being able to perform the Cobra...
@axewolfjack ??? LOOOOL Yeah, true, mate! Who the hell talked about thrust vectoring nozzles?? This was one of the first prototypes flowned and this is indeed a stress and test, and i believe they performed stall testing with the release of a shute in mid.flight at very slow speeds with a camera plane behind the F-14 test plane. This was made in the end of the 70s (i wasnt even borned!!!) and at that time, vectoring nozzles werent even on the scope yet. This is from WINGS, right?
Yes, it is. Tomcat did a cobra maneuver during high speed alpha maneuver testing. The same goes w/ f18 years later (see youtube) but for slow speed test. But the name of "cobra maneuver" weren't known at that time.
The F-14 was not a much agile fighter compared to 4th gen fighters like F-18, F-16 and MIG-29. I recall a report of NFWS (aka TopGun) where they said a good pilot in a F-14D could equal a F-16C using with the Tomcat advantages, it had better power to weight ratio, it could acelerate and brake faster and it had a better climb rate,but the turn rate was slower so the Tomcat has to play it in the vertical plane. Im not saying its bad at all,just that a F-16/F-18/MIG-29 will outturn it in
all things considered, it was pretty fucking agile for a massive bird.. add differential thrust and it would swap ends in the vertical and gun some of the smaller , more agile fighters. In the end, being agile isn't the end of story to what makes a fighter.. the Tomcat could go faster for longer with more payload then F16's and F18's... Sure they were more agile, but only if they were slick.. once they were armed , the Tomcat was more agile for the same payload. fact. Wars aren't fought with slick aircraft.
And in real world combat jets dont chase the other at distances where the jet wash may became dangerous. also the Goose death was tupid sinze ejection seats are desingned to not hit the canopy.Many pilots died in ejections in many ways but they had to choose a non existing one..also an AIM9 tone dont takes ages to lock , and so and so
There are some drawbacks of the Cobra as well. After the pull, the aircraft will be vulnerable to attack because that maneuver really depletes air speed. For example, an aircraft travelling at Mach 1 can suddenly drop to ZERO after performing that maneuver. What happens when a plane reach ZERO speed in mid air ? Ans is simple, the aircraft falls because there is no more airspeed ! This makes the aircraft a vulnerable target to nearby enemies :)
Well..this is the funny thing..it was deemed "inpractical in combat" by americans. Now they say its usefull (see dogfights F-22). 1-you may sudenly point your nose 90-110º in a direction to do a quick launch of your IR missiles 2-in dogfights is usefull only in very really close ones,you can slow down from 450 to 150k in a couple of seconds,but meanwhile you are a big target 3-Some claim it may defuse doppler radar missiles by apearing "still", but i would not risk that, its a far long shot bet
That is not a quick pull back on the stick, that would make the aircraft go vertical. The aircraft is going high alpha due to its leading edge extensions and other technologies being used by the pilot.
@Vyppaaa11 Of course you can stall the plane, simply run out of airspeed and it will flat stall , and actually due to the AoA limiter you have to use the override to recover from the flat stall , the AoA limiter prevents the pilot of exceding the max AoA and stalling the plane in normal flight envelope , MIG-29 and SU-27s do the same, actually they have a switch to turn off the limiter and be able to perform the cobra but without that switch they couldnt because the FCS would prevent it
No it was not as agile as those, but for it's size man that think could turn. It was more of a Long Range interceptor but it could dogfight. I agree on what you said there all in all. Mig29 it could beat though IMO, if it uses it's advantages and yes if the Pilot was good as usual. I agree on your post.
Either way, I heard that the Cobra has no real combat value. If a fighter pilot being persued performed a Cobra thinking he can slow down fast enough to let his persuer fly past him, then the persuer can simply launch a missile or fire his guns at the dorsal section.
The cobra doesnt stops complety the jet.. it bleeds airspeed from 400 to 150k in a couple of seconds with the jet not gaining or loosing almost altitude
The largest differwnce between the two is speed. At 500 kts, you'll grap more air and gain altitude. At or just below your best turning speed, you'll be able to flat plate it without changing altitude. This only requires huge elevators and plenty of stick. The problem is that doing so in anything without digital flight controls and/or TVC to help keep some stability is risky.
at low speeds low altitude the f14 can outturn the F16.but the sustained turn rate/not radious of the f16 can`t be match by te Tomcat.btw your right Sparrowlt.
Folks, this is clearly done during testing, and it's with an airframe equipped with the TF-30 engines. Those motors were good but they had some quirks, one of which was that they were sensitive to airflow disturbances in the intakes and they were also sensitive to rapid power changes. Pitching an F-14A past 90 degrees would induce engine intake disturbances that could cause one or both engines to flame out. The airframe itself is very much capable of performing high AoA maneuvers. Since maneuvers like this bleed energy, this wouldn't be a common combat maneuver because when you fight with jets, energy (speed) is life. Bleed that off too much against a competent fighter pilot and you'll die for your mistake. The newer GE F110 motors were the motors that the F14 should have had from the beginning. I would be surprised if the US Navy hadn't performed some very high AoA maneuvers during testing with the new engines.
Remember that the new engines were also powerful enough to allow this airframe, designed and built largely in the 1970s, to SuperCruise before that really became a buzzword now.
The F-14D model was an extremely capable platform. Why were these retired? Simple. Cost. The airframes were getting tired and the cost per flight hour was getting prohibitive. Once the Super Hornets hit the fleet, the Tomcat's days were numbered.
+Jeremy Hawk It wasn't that simple. What killed the F-14 was when the SecDef cancelled the program in 1989. 37 new F-14Ds were built between then and when the last one rolled out in 1992, just enough for about 3 squadrons. But, the vast majority of F-14s were older airframes. By the late 90s to early 2000s the average age of planes was probably over 15 years old. Some planes were over 20 years old.
Another main reason is there just twerent as many newer version cranking out as much as newer aircraft, and some of these newer aircraft had some combat capabilities the Tomcat simply didn't have. It's a minor reason, but a reason nonetheless
You lost me when you said "Those motors were good". They were NOT good. They were a horrible mismatch to the airframe. You have to say they were good...compared to what? My first flight with TF-30s, compressor stall on takeoff. Second flight, compressor stall with a 4 g symmetrical pull. The only good thing I can say about them is that they were pretty good on fuel consumption.
"I'm gonna hit the brakes he'll fly right by.."
"you´re gonna do what???"
Im ready to see the new Top Gun in theaters!!!!!!
topgun reference ? not sure if you stilll have this account
Are u alive
@@fifaseedsadly, I died several years ago.
It’s called a high Alfa maneuver. Pugachev’s cobra is performed at low speed about 270kn and the nose of the plane tilted at +120 degrees. The Swedes also used to perform high Alfa maneuvers with their Saab 35 draken way back in 1955.
eloidor this is also similar to the RCAF's high speed viper maneuver which only can be pulled off in a select variety of jets. Specifically learned and practiced with the cf-18c hornet. This has a specific name in the tomcat due to the maneuver only being pulled off at low to medium air speed with the wingsweep out
Uhm, isn't the High Alpha maneuver that performed with Saab 35 _were_ the Cobra?
It is not a Pugachev Cobra because like you said yourself, the maneuver was already used by the Swedish back in the 1950s, the Syrians in the Mig-21 from the early/mid 1960s onwards but the Russians only entered the game in the 80s.
There is also no minimum AOA limit to this maneuver as long as it’s purpose is achieved which the Tomcat does by quickly “air braking” at some 80° AOA. Even several Iranian pilots describe using the “Cobra” in combat during the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s. on a regular basis.
Nah I still see it as a cobra
The planes nose pitches up very quickly to around 90 degrees of AOA so I’ll call it a cobra
Pugacev Cobra invented by Syrian pilot when Yomkipur war, and Israel say the crazy Syrian pilot sit on its tail of Mig-21.
I wish they could have upgraded the Tomcats like the Eagles and Hornets
The F-14D was quite an upgrade.. an even better radar than the original wich basically was the better fighter radar ever made by US until the F-22 came.. double pod IRST+TV camera.. modern HUD, MFDs, multirole capacity, it could even teorically fire AMRAAMs (i think they tested some from a F-14D) .. tought they never implemented that.. and then politics joined with maintenance costs..
The F-15E for example ..its esentuilly a F-15D with radar with AG modes (same as the F-15C/D with extra AG modes) , MFDs , multirole capacity and extra hardpoints.. the cell, wing and engines are the same as the F-15D (and F-15C/D could mount CFTs too).
Also, upgraded GE-110 turbofan engines with 10,000 lbs of additional thrust (32,000 lbs per engine). That gave F-14D a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. Also, all of the electronic avionics gave F-14D a glass cockpit.
30,000 lbs in over 0.9 Mach and in the over 10000 feet altitude .If security lets me , tell you in IRIAF what upgrade was installed in Parsian Cat Fleets,new Radar, strong engine more than F110-GE-400/100, AG capacity, new aim54c ( Fakor 90 with over 83 NM max range and over 58 NM optimum range for Target with highly maneuverability ), And very important systems like: most advance RWR/ECM/IFF systems that can detected any threat, Fighter with less than 0.4 square meter RCS, IR missile, Active homing missile,and... from over 60NM can alert to the RIO the threat vector, speed, altitude, And if I say more accurate, We made and changed RIO cockpits to the Advanced Electronics and Signal Processing Laboratory.The most effective Air supremacy that could shot down over 135 fighter Aircraft during Iran-iraq War include 2 Mig29A and 9 mig-25Foxbat and ...even 3 or 4 mig 23, at the same time with one Phoenix AIM-54A unit and out pilot also had a many record such as over 12 hour in cockpit for CAP mission with 8 time Air refueling during Operation Azhdar that F-14s played TOP cover Rolls to protect the ships caravans and keep avoid from air strike
Ben Peltola
The F-18 didnt do the same job as the Tomcat.. yes the F-18E with the AESA radar upgrade and the AIM-120D has similar interception performance.. but the Tomcat had much much more range.. When the A-6 retired they had to use Tomcats to bomb in Afghanistan as they had the range to deliver the payloads.. the Hornets needed several refuels.
And its a problem that cant be solved easily as the F-18 is evolved from a light fighter... the Tomcat was a heavy fighter and had lots of fuel room.. you would need to make a bigger F-18..wich they allready did with the SuperHornet but even that its not enought to cover the range of the A-6/F-14
Ben Peltola
There was a F-22 naval proposal..with swing wings... but it was cancelled.. now they have the F-35C on the table.. aparently the F-35C might match the Tomcat range.. it stealth and has a supperb radar.. however it lacks the Tomcat speed and to maintain stealth only the internal bays can be used wich severely limits payload (increasing range incidentally)
this being recommended to me 16 years later
it's Kurt Schroeder - chief test pilot of Grumman corporation.
I saw the other day a maneouver in the history channel "Dogfights" series of a pilot nicknamed "Mugs" in a F-4B .. he pulled a complete 360º backflip in a close dogfight puting his enemy in front of him..
That was awesome impressive and in a F-4..
A lot of poorly informed people in this post. the argument that this maneuver is "not a Cobra" maneuver is a moot point. The fact is that this type of maneuver(regardless of what name one may attach to it) is a high AoA pitch-up designed to rapidly decelerate the aircraft. the F-14 was able to reach and go beyond the 90 nose up attitude but the primary problem with this is that the PW TF30-P412/P414 engines were very sensitive and prone to compressor stalls with any significant air divergence in the intake as well as the 80% minimum RPM restriction. With this in mind, the Test Flights using this maneuver revealed that average to low time F-14A pilots should not attempt or be trained to perform this maneuver and that restriction became NATOPS standard for the F-14. Still, with the AFCS pitch and roll channels off, the F-14 could easily reach pitch/AoA of the SU-27 but one fact remains, the F-14 did this type of maneuver before the first SU-27 or Mig-29 were built and flying and even before the F-14, the SAAB 37 Draken could perform a similar maneuver with the "Superstall" technique.
What about the F-14B or D models with the GE engines meant to solve the compressor stall sensitivity problems?
Oh yes! One of my good friends flew the F-14 for 20 years during his career. He started off on the TF30-PW-414 engines before moving into the F-14A+(later re-designated F-14B). You could move the throttles on the GE F110 pretty much care free and afford a better latitude of maneuver envelope. If you've ever seen Capt. Dale Snodgrass fly his F-14B/D routines, it's pretty aggressive and he's obviously flying with the AFCS cut off.
Storm KILM Very jealous of your friend! Like many kids who had the best gift from their father - the moment where he says, "Son, let's sit down for a while. I want to show you a movie...called TOP GUN." - I grew up wanting to fly an F-14 Tomcat. I was 16 when they retired it for good, and I was devastated. I had a neighbor who went to the Naval Academy, and he attended a very highly-regarded prep school that was a brother school to my sister's high school (another highly-regarded prep school). I devoted my middle school dreams to going to that school (McCallie), and then I went. I believed that going there would get me my best chances to go to the Naval Academy, which in turn would get me my best chance at an aviator's slot. When they retired the Tomcat, the dreams all but died. Selfish, narcissistic? Sure, but it got me a great education (and I subsequently went to the University of Tennessee, which I loved). However, every so often, I catch myself daydreaming of being in the cockpit of my all time favorite jet. Cats rule, baby! ;)
Storm KILM
But is a good point.. the F110s solved that problem.. but we dont see Tomcats doing theese maneovers in B/Ds... at least not that i can find on video..
its sad when you think how many folks would still be alive had the Tomcat began with the F110 (or even the F100 from the F-15 wich is pretty much same engine) instead of the TF30
Angus Gibson
, No matter what you dream of being in life, you have to pursue it with no efforts spared. It's not at all selfish/narcissistic because the end game is that you find your place in this world which that skill you worked so hard to achieve(whether being a Pilot, Doctor, Teacher, etc) becomes and asset for the benefit of others. Being a Fighter Pilot, that's a super competitive endeavor and only the best will find their way into the cockpit of such aircraft. You have to be a bit cocky, aggressive, arrogant while at the same time possessing the intellect to know and master such a technical machine. That mindset is a necessity because those you'll fight against intend to kill you and everyone else if allowed to do so. Some might view a Fighter Pilot as a supreme contradiction, a person who wasted their intellect to do such an endeavor but in reality, anyone who does become one sets themselves apart from average people, they place themselves in harms way to help ensure the horror of War NEVER reaches those who live behind that safety net.
warthunder players: this is where the fun begins
Well, modern radars tell if the target is friendly or unknown and some can even ID the aircraft if its coming straight at you and the radar can "see" the target engine.
But unknown doesnt mean necesarily enemy, could be a civilian or could be an allied plane from other nation who doesnt use IFF transponder (like a UAV or small helicopters .. etc) Thats why the ROE requires many things before engaging and thats why AWACS and many other assets are in combat zones
damm 18 years ago wow
It does make a very impressive airshow maneuver, but consider it as a carefully timed excursion from a Yo-Yo. You are both down below 300 kts trading turns and he nails a cobra. All of a sudden, he's at 135 knots just off your wingtip and you're making a good 250-300. Your options probably include going vertical or trying to accelerate out of the problem. Remember, in an A-A configuration, he can go vertical and accelerate as good as you can.
@AeroSharkTech i could not agree more.. I'm no fighter think tank, but the sheer amount of kinetic energy and airspeed lost doing this maneuver in combat would probably give your pursuer the chance to get the upper hand... if that pursuer is the raptor, I wouldn't doubt that it could be able to roll back into your six
No this is not a cobra, because this maneuver is called a tomcat, Naval Fighter Weapons School teaches a wide arrange of tactics at a wide arrange of flight envelopes, so there is no doubt this maneuver has been encountered long before the Russians believed they invented it. So it is no question as to why MiG and Sukhoi copied the F-14's nacelle fuselage design, as a matter of fact the Su-27 bears a striking resemblance to a fixed wing concept of the F-14 proposed by Grumman.
@JK JK1 One of the chief Sukhoi engineers said the Cobra maneuver is for school-aged idiots at air shows, with no practical value in combat. You're also incorrect about American aircraft unable to perform it. Baby Hornets can do it with no thrust vectoring, and the F-22 can do it in spades, then accelerate like no other while combat-configured. Try pulling this stunt with a combat-configured Su-27, Su-30, or Su-35S and watch what happens.
The Sukhoi's perform the Cobra maneuver at well below 'Va' (maneuvering speed).
If it can't get an off-boresight IR missile shot, it's toast. Zero energy, and trying to regain precious airspeed to get back inside it's turn envelope.
I don't see this as a tactic that would useful in combat.
A zero energy state is not a spot any fighter pilot wants to be in; from the Spad to the modern F-22s and SU-30s.
@JK JK1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra
In the case of the Su-27, the pilot initially disengages the angle of attack limiter of the plane, normally set at 26°.[1] This action also disengages the g limiter. After that the pilot pulls back on the stick hard. The aircraft reaches 90-120° angle of attack with a slight gain of altitude and a significant loss of speed.
@@r1100s
www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/8a66ta/out_of_the_shadows_rnlaf_experiences_with_the/
Out Of The Shadows: RNLAF experiences with the F-35A - Combat Aircraft Magazine May 2018
Dutch F-35 Block 3F, "F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to within visual range manoeuvring'".
nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/
More F-16 vs F-35 from Norwegian pilot.
I quote
_Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_
theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
Norwegian F-35 Pilot claims F-35A can use high AoA for large air brake to reach high G minimum turn radius advantage speed range.
Cobra air-brake can useful to reach high G minimum turn radius advantage speed range, but it can be misused.
f-14s lose to f-15s in "dogfight" training , and you're telling me the su-27 copied it?
It is YF-14-protype.It is first Cobra but authior is not Pugachev and T-10S- Su-27P. Author is company Grumman and test pilots and YF-14.
One example was the F-4 / F-8 vs MIG-17s in Vietnam. The MIG-17 seriously overturned everything in the air.. but it was slow and it had poor power to weight ratio. F-4s and F-8s used their superior thrust to tackle the MIGs vertically where the MIG could not go.. thats why the MIG-21 was more dangerous despite not being as agile as the 17..it had way better thrust.
@vbs221 The Tomcat was doing stress maneuvers to test its AoA capabilities with the wings unswept. The intent was not to perform a cobra. There is a book, "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering" by R.L. Shaw, in which he stated that with the wings swept, the Tomcat can achieve AoA beyond 90 degrees.
Thanks for the info, its awesome. I was told shot ago that F-14 is doing simply a high a-a pull. Also the video is from the prototype F-14A wich had the troublesome TF-30 engines wich i guess dont like high a-a
Iran AM 4 TOMCAT made advantage upgraded the real reason why united states' of America didn't upgrade technology within the f-14 original version is outdated is the usa typical can't improve it's own society standards take for ex mig 31 it's actually an F-15 eagle only this was Sovjetunionen technology within most of what you hear about USA state saying the original f14 is outdated is BS ask china and Russia!
This wasn't an attempt at a Cobra or any other special maneuver. The aircraft shown is one of the original YF-14As with test equipment installed. The pilot is trying to induce a compressor stall and force the plane into a spin so they can test spin recovery techniques.
Guys were pulling off the cobra in the f18 only a couple of weeks after they saw a russian pilot do it.
The stresses of repeated "cobras" caused cracking so top brass told the pilots too knock it off and limited the envelope....though the newer f18s aren't limited.
The reason you don't see it is because it's "old hat" like the moonwalk dance move.
The F/A-18A-D teorically can do a cobra.. but acording to what i have been told the vertical rudders would probably snap since they were not designed to do that.. the F/A-18E/F corrected that problem and its capable of perform the cobra both aerodynamically and structurally
What is the obsession with the Cobra? When it's used in a air to air combat situation and shoots down an enemy fighter, then I'll understand. Right now I don't see any reason a pilot would use this in combat...unless they want to get shot out of the sky. The whole Cobra idolization has gotten out of control. The f-16 VISTA could do cobras, but it was considered useless in combat.
I know right? Like who in their right mind want to stall in the middle of a dogfight
The obsession with the Cobra is it just looks cool!
@@Dennis-ns1yx A russian pilot would use this maneauver right before an f16 pilot used his plane as a straffing rag. No pilot in his right mind would bleed off his energy just to see if the cobra really works. Not unless hes committing suicide.
The cobra love affair came because a BBC “anything Russia does is better” announcer saw ir at a Paris air show. A friend who was an F16 pilot called it the “last thing you do to die looking cool”
the Cobra has no practical use in air combat but its real purpose is to demonstrate an aircraft's extreme nose-pointing ability and pitch authority at low speeds, both of which are very very useful in a close in dogfight or stall recovery. technically Hornets could do Cobras too, its design has an exceptional stability at high alpha but of course the FCS won't allow it.
@AwesomeBeyond Well yea but the cobra requires a decrease in speed which leaves you vulnerable to gun fire, Also the F-22 shoots out cold air to reduce the exhaust heat of the engines.
@c4m3 Theorically it can .. but the FCS probably has no a function for it.. also i have seen interviews of Typhoon piltos where they said the Cobra is useless in actual combat so they dont use it. The Typhoon is a delta wing so it can turn really fast even at high speeds (tought bleeding a lot of energy)
Its described as a departure from controlled flight.
there is many discussion going on about if that maneouver is possible.. last i readed was a USAF pilot who said it was but it was a hell risk of stalling the engines and not being able to recover the departure
@sparrowlt i have also learned that the pilots go to idle when performing the cobra its so that if an engine goes outthe plane doesnt get biserk. i dont think it affects the plane or what
Art Scholl, a stunt pilot, was tragically killed doing an inverted flat spin for this film to get the spinning scenery on film. His last transmissions, uttered at 3,000 and then 1,500 feet, were, "I've got a problem" and "I've really got a problem." It is speculated that camera equipment affixed to the plane altered its weight-and-balance envelope, making recovery from a flat spin (normally difficult in any case) impossible. The film is dedicated to his memory
@BRIANROX1 If im not mistaken.. engines in a SU-27 are arround 80% rpm during the cobra..
Even they have to add a bit of power at some point during the maneouver
@ZeeFrenchie jet turbines are monitored by % rpm of the max rpm. Where cars are monitored by total rpm (example: 2500 rpm , idle at 900rpm, max 7000rpm , etc) planes vary greatly from turbine to turbine so they are used by % , being 100% the max rated rpm when throttle is at max..
Idle in jets is usually between 60 and 70% rpm.. so in flight you work between idle and 100%
As my job I know it very well.
Although apparently it's lookalike Cobra but it's a kind of other useful maneuvers by name last Ditch. At least in US Navy and we in Iranian Air Force know it by that name. The point is that cobra is for reach to maximum possible speed in minimum climb! But unlike it, Last Ditch is for reach to minimum possible speed in maximum climb. And many jets can not do Last Ditch. Sometimes it's very useful in dogfight as well as Cobra. For example if suddenly you find out enemy fighter is in your tail you can do it and with a little bit lucky you can change position and go to its tail. Off course it's just an option...
Actually, these were just High AOA manuevers for testing. The Russians made it into a maneuver for combat or airshows. This maneuver you see here is just for angel of attack purposes. I think the Su-27 does a better cobra though since the Su-27 doesn't gain altitude or lose altitude while performing it. I think Pugachev's cobra is really one of the first performed with no altitude gain or loss.
I just came here from Growling Sidewinder's video
thats unexpected...
I watched that vid yesterday on GS channel and today this vid was in the algorithms
@@pickashole i watched today growling Rhino vs Tomcat video where shotguns pulls this on him and nearly gets him.. didnt knew Heatblur's tomcat could do that
@StiviGun1 While is true that the swedish did perform the cobra before the russians.. the russians never branded it as a creation of theirs.. its just that they popularized it by performing it with the MIG-29 and SU-27 in displays along the 80/90s. Its called Puchachiev's cobra because that was the test pilot that made it popular.. not the one who "invented" it
The capabilities and avionics in the first F-14 and F-15 derivatives are better than many 4th gen fighters. As far as I'm concerned they are still the first 4th gen fighters and the F-14 especially being the forerunner of many 4th gen fighter designs.
The two basic reasons that the Cobra is doable in MiG's and Su's are tolerance for inlet distortion from the engine and very clean exterior aerodynamics. The Russian engines and inlets are designed to tolerate an amazingly distorted airflow into the engine. With the F-100's and F-101s in F-15s and F-16s, the engine has a very real possibility of stalling at these flight attitudes. At low altitude and in the Cobra attitude, it would be a pronged aircraft!
CMD D.F BALLARD VF-84 'VAMPIRE'
I'm Hungarian, so I could see the Hungarian MiG-29s doing te cobra manoeuvre. In this manner i have the bechmark, so I also think, this manoeuvre also could be a cobra. I also read somewhere, that the Sweedish Draken was the first aircraft that made a cobra...
@1bearcatf8f Mig 29 ovt does the cobra and yes the ovt has thrust vectoring.
Hasn't anyone seen the original Top Gun? It's the best part of the movie!
Merlin: What are you doing? You're slowing down, you're slowing down!
Maverick: I'm bringing him in closer, Merlin.
Merlin: You're gonna do WHAT?
Maverick: I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by.
Merlin: Maverick, you big stud... Take me to bed or lose me forever.
And they lived happily ever after.
MLU stands for "Mid Life Upgrade".. is an extensive upgrade that most military craft receive at some point..
In our case (and same as many others like Canada or Australia) we had F/A-18A .. they then at some point were upgrade to "MLU" meaning new avionics, improved radar,electronics,revised engines.. Like updating to a C model or beyond (C models also receive upgrades so MLU are up to the point when they are made), other example is the F-16A-MLU wich is comparable to F-16C
If you have a bogey on your six and closing fast, the cobra can make him overshoot. If it is a seasoned pilot he'll keep his distance and can perform a barrel roll to reposition him or herself to regain the six. One more option is that the cobra will increase the RCS and light up the scope like a Christmas tree or it will leave one open to guns.
Draken performed Cobras in the 60's.
@Buuub08 The F-16 is aerodinamically capable of doing a Cobra, but its not possible fue to the FCS limitations to avoid going out of control, even with the override it will not allow.
Russian jets (Fulcrum and Flanker) pilots must push a button to disengage the angle of attack limiter to perform the cobra
The cobra was first done by Boyd and it was called "flat-plating the bird", what the Russians call the cobra and it was done by Boyd in the 50's in a Super Sabre. The russians were not the first to come up with the maneuver...
"I said that because someone had said that they were doing "thrust vectoring tests on early models of the Tomcat", or something along those lines." The Advanced Super Tomcat 21, which should be in the fleet and not the fail Hornet, had 3-D thrust vectoring, modern cockpit, lowered RCS etc.
Cobra or not, the fact that the 1970s generation airplane was able to do that was amazing in itself
I didnt made it up... it was stated that was a posibility.. modern missiles can fire with arcs of 60º ..
The missiles would be of course IR.. IR dont need to "lock-up" in "emergency shots".. you point their warhead to the target and fire.. the missile will follow the heat or (more recently) the IR spectre of the fuel burning in the engines..
You can even do the same with the AMRAAM, you firw without lock and it goes "MAD DOG" , it seeks its own target and goes after.. without IFF
No. The enemy would get a return spike on their radar. It wouldn't get a spike from an attacking missile until the missile is halfway there and goes active using its own radar. Those bay doors don't stay open long. Maybe a few seconds? That means your radar lights up, you have to figure out what you're seeing on radar, then, IF you realize it's an enemy, you have to lock them up, get a good solution, then fire. Good luck with that.
Its funny how almost ALLm people got their comments wrong with the last phrass.
As today ,US aircraft able to perform the cobra are the F-22 , the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F
IT still lacks power and range by far , specially compared to the F-14. With the new versions of the AMRAAM it can relativy replace the F-14+Phoenix combo and provide the USN with long range BVR. But it still lacks basic things like the long range TV-Cam, Tomcat pilots moved to SuperHornet complain about this because they cant visual-ID bogies at long range so in doubt situations they will have to close range voiding the advantages of the AMRAAM
There were plans to add thrust vectoring to the tomcat which would allow it to do a full 90 degrees cobra.
He is doing some of that pilot shit...
heres the thing about pete mitchelle,
if you buy the top gun dvd set that includes the filming and comments they mention him a lot and they show him flying in a real navy aircraft carrir on a plane that says pete mitchell on it, i think they also did a interview of him on there
And E/F model perhaps¿?
As far as i know F-18s A-D models can perform the cobra but they "cant" do because it might rip the vertical stabilizers.. this structural problem was fixed in the E-F superhornet models so they can perform the Cobra without risk (the old Hornets problem is that the rudders are slightly angled and not designed to take air at 400K from bellow,maybe the old Hornet can take it but enginers say it wont.Problem is who would risk to prove that :D
There’s a video where F-104S pilot talk about dogfight with F-14, at low altitude. I don’t think they were at low speed because F-104 can’t fight at low speed. I think they was more than 380-400 kts.
He told:
f-14 opened wings, pull cloche and he was stop in air. I passed him and I became prey.
Well, the first 2 looked like a cobra, but the last one looked like a low speed test.
Ok.. I'm no fighter pilot... but I'm a physics student. And from wat I know of physics, you would need a TWR of over 1 to do any of the moves demonstrated by the Su-27 bak in 80s. Now, the F-22's TWR is 1.09 whereas the Su-35's is 1.10, and the MKI shares this figure. The F22 has a better wing loading, and the three are about tied in speed. And the cobra would easily trick a radar guided missile like the AIM-120D as well as a AIM-9X due to scattering of light and heat.
www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10659
Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs."
F-22's total thrust is 74,000 lbf. Wki source is not correct.
Vampire is right! In a flat spin the canopy would have significant forward forces on it (remember it is well forward of the AC cg), essentially it would tumble and yaw away from the axis of the spin. The ejection seat motion would be primarily be up and slightly back (6deg) as it leaves the rails, a litttle towards the spin axis. Trust me, this has been tested in real life.
Now what did the Flanker and Fulcrum take from 4th generation US fighter design? Easy: spaced & seperated podded engines (pioneered on F-14), wide lifting area body (F-14 again), and leading edge root extensions (F-16/YF-17/F/A-18). The F/A-18E/F with it's very large LERX and large area wing produce the necessary lift and energizing of air, enough to force the plane into a full Cobra past the 90 deg mark. With the excellent wing loading the transition back to level flight should be easy.
Actually, the first jet was the venerable F-100. Before that pilots were known to have gone to similiar extremes with aircraft like the P-38. The big difference that people miss is that the new Sukhois (and F-22) are stable enough to do it easily and at lower altitude. Aside from that, it's really nothing new.
I said that because someone had said that they were doing "thrust vectoring tests on early models of the Tomcat", or something along those lines.
@radekroni ALL those planes you name have stabillity controls (more like Alpha limiter in this case) , russians ,americans and europeans.. difference is that all russian planes have a switch to turn off and the rest usually dont..
The new F/A-18E/F has a switch somewhere to be able to do cobras.. and the F-22 and F-35 have a function built in the software to allow cobras when the pilot ask for it ..
@Buuub08 Sorry.. acording to the F/A-18A-D i mean "it CANT take it structurally".. i missed a "T" , that means that the plane should be able to do it, but the rudders would break-off because they are not capable ot taking the sudden change in airflow.. that problem was "fixed" in the newer F/A-18E/F and its capable of cobras, also aparently the FCS on the superhornets have been setup so it can perform it...tought i think its for displays and shows only
The cobra could be good in a merge. If your opponent is above you, and so perform a cobra that goes beyond 90 degrees, with modern missiles you could snap a missile shot as your opponent flys by, completely surprising them.
Never say never, Mr Bond...
in fact the F14D dont have any problem going up to 60 degres.and it`s something that not all modern planes can do.
We'll hit the breaks and he'll fly right by.
Actually, they can do cobra, but they can`t do manouver called Pugachev`s Cobra which is actually real cobra (120 degrees).
As usarcoXXXXX said the Escort Cosworth was developed by Ford Europe+Cosword wich is british.
Nobody knows the thrust to weight yet. Nobody even knows the top speed yet. Thus far, everything is speculation based on "good math." the F-15 has thrust-weight of 1.15. One of the Raptor test pilots said that "even though the Raptor thrust-weight is less than the the F-15, it outclimbs the Eagle because the engines are so much more efficient." The only reason it is not official is because it is still secret.
This isn't quit the cobra. It is known as the "breakstand". Same principle except in a breakstand you're gaining altitude. When a cobra is properly executed, the aircraft's altitude remains unchanged.
This actually negates the advantage of this type of maneuver, which is to drastically change your flight characteristics to confuse a radar guided missile. It would be better to quickly change altitude, among other things.
@Buuub08 There is no video of a standard F-16 doing a cobra. I said it was technically capable but it cant do it due to FCS limitations, the FCS should be reprogramed to allow a cobra, and as i said in the comments, the F/A-18A-D is also aerodynamically capable of doing a cobra but , apart from the FCS limit, enginers say it can take it structurally. The newer F/A-18E/F superhornet its cobra capable , as is the F-22 and F-35. The SAAB Draken also is, and theorically the Typhoon (not much known)
True.. also anoying to the Hornet comunity was the fact that aftter the retiring of the A-6 the F-14D was the longest range bomber the navy has and the only one capable of reaching far-in Afghan bomb sites..and it wasnt even born as a multirole fighter like the Hornet was.
The Hornet is a great plane but its a light fighter.. the Russians developed the combo SU-27+MIG-29 as such duo, the navy should had done the same developing a longer range fighter to replace F14s.. maybe the incoming F-35?
The F14D could do all you say and then some! That was the Tomcat on steroids lol, are you serious? That could outturn most fighters even in the world today! Come on man read up on it with the upgraded avionics and the engines! That Jet was a beast.
I read somewhere that with the GE F110 engines the F-14D could match in dogfight a F-16C, obviously the Viper outmatchs the Tomcat in turn radious/turn rate but the Tomcat can climb/acelerate/brake waaay faster than the Viper, The F-16 has a AoA limit of some 25º (without the override :D )
@Vyppaaa11 Sorry but no they are not. F-16 block 50/52 are the mid 90s F-16 standard.. the F-16 is equiped with a fly by wire FCS computer wich has an AoA limiter wich doesnt allow to exceed certain AoA, so no cobra posible.. even when you switch the "pitch override" switch it wont allow a cobra without modification. The F-16 MAVT could do cobras but that was a research NASA aircradt with a modified FCS software
Check out video "Saab J35 Draken trainers doing Pugachev's Cobra Maneuver" The j-35 is a late sixties fighter. While older aircraft can't do a "superstall" or cobra at low speeds as well as a Su-37, it is still impressive.
that was definitely a pull of the stick.Whether other aerodynamic features/technologies were incorporated during that maneuver is something I don't know.It is possible, however.
"SU-27 is not based on F-14 or F-15.. " Yes the SU-27 is based off of the F-14, look the engine inlets, the pancake and the angle of the wings which, is the same as the F-14 when it is swept forward for better maneuvering. The MiG-29 incorporated the F-16/F/A-18 into the fuselage blending with the F-14, engine angles/pancake.
I definitely see a lot of F-14 inspiration in the design, but it doesn't mean it was stolen - the Russians are not the Chinese and they have a lot of pride in their aircraft. Sukhoi doesn't need to cheat. It's an aggressive fourth-gen fighter design that resembles several aircraft of that era. The F-14 was essentially the first of its generation and the Flanker (and Rafale, I guess) is the last of its generation.
@@VisibilityFoggy Sir, I highly recommend you start researching the Russian designs. The Soviets have flatout stolen numerous designs from the US, the B-29 and B-1B. The Tu-160 is an obvious copy of the B-1B, as is the Tu-4 of the B-29. The SU-27 is the first Russian aircraft with spread nacelle, not to mention the wing sweep, and other features are taken directly from the F-14. The Soviets, like the Chinese, have always trailed the US because they lack the finances for R&D.
@sparrowlt well i can see how adding power exiting the maneuver would help
But the F14-Tomcat actually can go very high AoA,the problem was not the plane itself,in fact!! the f14 was one of the best designs ever.the TF30 P412A was the nemesis off the plane.
in dogfight a cobra can make your opponent (at 6 o'clock) to overshoot .. because its a high angle of attack (AoA) manouvre and makes your plane to slow down really fast.. then, moving back to normal position you could be trailing your opponent ..
Sorry for my bad english -.-"
The cobra is supposed to slow you down rapidly so an enemy at your 6 passes you putting you at their 6... but that's only good for 1v1. If you're engaging more then one enemy, using the cobra to allow one enemy at your tail to pass you will cause you to be missile bait for the other enemies.
@sparrowlt What does 80% RPM mean?! Engine RPMs vary greatly between idle, cruise or MTO for example!
Amd the MIG-29, and the Eurofighter, and the F-22, the F-35, the F/A-18E, the Rafale, the Grippen, probably the J-10.
Dunno.. the videos i saw of the Draken are quite identical to a cobra.. even more violent than the Sukhoi ones... and in the wikipedia the Draken is listed as being able to perform the Cobra...
@axewolfjack
???
LOOOOL
Yeah, true, mate! Who the hell talked about thrust vectoring nozzles?? This was one of the first prototypes flowned and this is indeed a stress and test, and i believe they performed stall testing with the release of a shute in mid.flight at very slow speeds with a camera plane behind the F-14 test plane. This was made in the end of the 70s (i wasnt even borned!!!) and at that time, vectoring nozzles werent even on the scope yet.
This is from WINGS, right?
Yes, it is. Tomcat did a cobra maneuver during high speed alpha maneuver testing. The same goes w/ f18 years later (see youtube) but for slow speed test. But the name of "cobra maneuver" weren't known at that time.
I remember seeing this footage over Calverton field a long time ago
The F-14 was not a much agile fighter compared to 4th gen fighters like F-18, F-16 and MIG-29.
I recall a report of NFWS (aka TopGun) where they said a good pilot in a F-14D could equal a F-16C using with the Tomcat advantages, it had better power to weight ratio, it could acelerate and brake faster and it had a better climb rate,but the turn rate was slower so the Tomcat has to play it in the vertical plane.
Im not saying its bad at all,just that a F-16/F-18/MIG-29 will outturn it in
that is what the high and low yoyo techniques are for, allows an aircraft to turn in the vertical inside a tighter turning aircraft in the horizontal
all things considered, it was pretty fucking agile for a massive bird.. add differential thrust and it would swap ends in the vertical and gun some of the smaller , more agile fighters.
In the end, being agile isn't the end of story to what makes a fighter.. the Tomcat could go faster for longer with more payload then F16's and F18's...
Sure they were more agile, but only if they were slick.. once they were armed , the Tomcat was more agile for the same payload. fact.
Wars aren't fought with slick aircraft.
And in real world combat jets dont chase the other at distances where the jet wash may became dangerous. also the Goose death was tupid sinze ejection seats are desingned to not hit the canopy.Many pilots died in ejections in many ways but they had to choose a non existing one..also an AIM9 tone dont takes ages to lock , and so and so
There are some drawbacks of the Cobra as well. After the pull, the aircraft will be vulnerable to attack because that maneuver really depletes air speed. For example, an aircraft travelling at Mach 1 can suddenly drop to ZERO after performing that maneuver. What happens when a plane reach ZERO speed in mid air ? Ans is simple, the aircraft falls because there is no more airspeed ! This makes the aircraft a vulnerable target to nearby enemies :)
F-14 doing long cobra good job
i can feel the buffetting from here
Well..this is the funny thing..it was deemed "inpractical in combat" by americans. Now they say its usefull (see dogfights F-22).
1-you may sudenly point your nose 90-110º in a direction to do a quick launch of your IR missiles
2-in dogfights is usefull only in very really close ones,you can slow down from 450 to 150k in a couple of seconds,but meanwhile you are a big target
3-Some claim it may defuse doppler radar missiles by apearing "still", but i would not risk that, its a far long shot bet
That is not a quick pull back on the stick, that would make the aircraft go vertical. The aircraft is going high alpha due to its leading edge extensions and other technologies being used by the pilot.
@Vyppaaa11 Of course you can stall the plane, simply run out of airspeed and it will flat stall , and actually due to the AoA limiter you have to use the override to recover from the flat stall , the AoA limiter prevents the pilot of exceding the max AoA and stalling the plane in normal flight envelope , MIG-29 and SU-27s do the same, actually they have a switch to turn off the limiter and be able to perform the cobra but without that switch they couldnt because the FCS would prevent it
No it was not as agile as those, but for it's size man that think could turn. It was more of a Long Range interceptor but it could dogfight. I agree on what you said there all in all. Mig29 it could beat though IMO, if it uses it's advantages and yes if the Pilot was good as usual. I agree on your post.
Either way, I heard that the Cobra has no real combat value.
If a fighter pilot being persued performed a Cobra thinking he can slow down fast enough to let his persuer fly past him, then the persuer can simply launch a missile or fire his guns at the dorsal section.
The cobra doesnt stops complety the jet..
it bleeds airspeed from 400 to 150k in a couple of seconds with the jet not gaining or loosing almost altitude
The largest differwnce between the two is speed. At 500 kts, you'll grap more air and gain altitude. At or just below your best turning speed, you'll be able to flat plate it without changing altitude. This only requires huge elevators and plenty of stick. The problem is that doing so in anything without digital flight controls and/or TVC to help keep some stability is risky.
at low speeds low altitude the f14 can outturn the F16.but the sustained turn rate/not radious of the f16 can`t be match by te Tomcat.btw your right Sparrowlt.