This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cobra maneuver article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Is there a reason why the French and American aircraft in the list have "citation needed" next to them and the Soviet aircraft do not? A pesky Russian editor attempting to be comical, perhaps? Mojodaddy ( talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You must ask 122.104.81.118 below! -- HDP ( talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No actual tactical importance?
Well, I'm only a flight sim affictionado, so I know nothing about nothing, I'm sure, but performing a hook correctly seems, at least in flight-sim land - to succeed in putting your nose on the target, after which you can shoot at him.
I'm obviously not an expert, but I do believe that shooting and hitting had some trifeling tactical significance. :-) Kim Bruning 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the reference to little tactical use is refering to the Cobra and not the Hook. The Hook is tactically very useful and can be used by many aircraft to fly in one direction but shoot in another. LWF 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed "asstatic" to "aesthetic", as it was probably supposed to be. :) Stealth 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
"made more neutral" for some definition of neutral. :-P Take with a grain of salt. :-) Made Hook a redlink too, I wonder if there's much written on that subject? Kim Bruning 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi I hope I'm posting this sort of thing correctly. This article piqued my interest; I love flight simulators and recently watched the movie "Top Gun" again. Though I understand that film is a Hollywood blockbuster and is not the best representation of actual combat, ACM, or flight in general, it seems to me that "Maverick" attempts something similar to a Cobra. He attempts to bring planes in close behind him, (first Jester early in the movie and then later a MiG-28) and then hits the brakes and tilts the plane upward. After a split second, he re-applies thrust and tilts the plane downward again. Again, I realize that "Top Gun" is not a fantastic source, but could his maneuver be described as a Cobra? I'm just a college student who's interested. Swatkid2 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Compare german wikipedia ( de:Kobramanöver):
Sounds reasonable. Here's another tidbit from aicn (about a movie done with usaf support):
Now the english WP says
No mention of any advantage. Sounds very illogical. Furthermore, when one counts it that until the F22 comes out, no westerner aircraft was able to perform the manoever, this line suddenly sounds like western propaganda ("oh, it's not any good anyway"). Anybody with more details about this? Thanks! Peter S. 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, very insightful. Peter S. 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You have to realize that Top Gun is not an accurate representation. The tactics used are awful, and the planes are not represented accurately. On another note, the F-22 has recently been shown to be capable of doing the cobra. LWF 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"Today, the German Luftwaffe performs the maneuver with cold-war era MiG-29's"#
The German Luftwaffe sold all their Fulcrums to poland 2 years ago.
The F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet can also perform the Cobra, here is video of it, I'm adding them to the list.
Hornet Cobra Video
http://www.139f.com/portal/show/1306635.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.203.139 ( talk) 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Actualy I have seen it for real, and to be honest pilot nearly crash. Evadinggrid ( talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rog3lQn3f2g it did a very high speed one here so there was a slight increase in altitude, but i have seen one perform the maneuver at a lower speed as well
Nem1yan (
talk)
23:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Although it is true that when doing the Cobra maneuver the high energy bleed rate would put the pilot in a very vulnerable position, it is not the maneuver itself that matters. The point-and-shoot maneuverability and "supermanouverability", if properly utilized in air combat, can yield very high tactical value. The key to success in combat with all-aspect missiles is to shoot first. Supermaneuverability allows a pilot to gain a shot opportunity earlier than with conventional maneuverability. Whet the Cobra maneuver clearly demonstrates is enhanced controllability in the pitch axis. 145.99.155.65 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several places in the article where weasel word assertions are made. This is an encyclopedia - we are supposed to be referencing external authorities - it doesn't matter how good the reasoning is above as per the usefulness or otherwise of this aero, authoritative external sources must be cited. I have inserted one {{fact}}. More needed. Paul Beardsell 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The controls are doubtless not just centralised to recover - a more deliberate control input will be required. Where does this (dis)information come from? No citation will cause deletion of an otherwise excellent diagram. Paul Beardsell 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it plausible that neutralizing the elevator could bring the nose back to the horizon. At such extreme angles of attack, virtually all airfoils produce strong negative pitching moments. So, unless the CG is behind about 50% of the main wing's MAC, the jet would tend to pitch down (from >90°) regardless of elevator position. Furthermore, it might even be necessary to apply up elevator to keep the nose from swinging through level into negative angles of attack. 68.5.141.240 ( talk) 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The disengaging of an alpha limiter is not an essential feature of this stunt unless the aircraft is fitted with one and not all are. Deleted this text. But still a problem with the diagram which, if not fixed, must be removed. Paul Beardsell 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am a little older than some here, but I remember the Harrier pulling "thrust-up" maneuvers very successfully in combat during the Falklands war - the BBC showed several interviews with pilots supporting this. So I don't see how it can be said to be of little use. If the arguement is that modern long-range missiles make it obselete, then surely that is true of ALL air combat maneuvers - yet every airforce in the world still trains pilots in them - so I guess a lot of top military strategists must see a certain value in them!! Sounds like a touch of patriotism before neutrality to me. Laudable, but not fair-minded. 82.25.243.109 13:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've just remade my Cobra drawing and re-uploaded it (with no any ambiguous instructions or other extra text). Please tell me what you think. If there are minor changes to be made and you want to make them for me, the Illustrator file is provided. -- Henrickson 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read this one? http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj88/spr88/siuru.html
What do you all think? Perhaps certain governments think there might be something to it - just think of the amount of money they spend on it! 82.25.255.170 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is some suggestion that certain manoevers can also confuse modern "doppler" radar systems - for example a vertical dive to a very low level. The dive, because it does not contain a forwards element of motion is said to make the "doppler" radar lose its lock.
Several Soviet aircraft have enhanced optical detection systems so as not to rely on the doppler radar. Do Western aircraft have this?
The "Cobra" may also be able to break radar, although I'm not sure if the effect is long enough.
Certainly, a "Cobra" ending in a vertical dive to one side or the other would seem to fit.
Any comments?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya
22:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT possible to do Pugachev's Cobra in the "MiG-29" per se, because that aircraft is traditional hydro-mechanic steering. Only analogue or digital fly-by-wire planes, like the Su-27 or the "MiG-29M" (MiG-35) can do the true 110 degrees cobra. The ex-german (now polish) MiG-29 planes were pushrod steering, so they simply cannot do the cobra. The original MiG-29A/B can only do the tailslide. 82.131.210.162 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any reason why the lack of fly-by-wire would preclude the Cobra. In fact, I have seen videos of Saab 35 Drakens, which do not have fly-by-wire, performing the maneuver (albeit at only 90-100°). I'm not affirming or denying your claim that the MiG-29 is incapable of performing Pugachev's Cobra. I'm just pointing out that the maneuver can be performed by human pilots without a computer's help. 68.5.141.240 ( talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
video clip Mig-29's can indeed cobra Nem1yan ( talk) 03:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
F22 can only do the Cobra with Thrust-Vectoring. So it's in the wrong category. I have moved it to "Thrust vectoring aircraft, such as:" Second: We really need citations! @ 82.131.210.162, I saw the ex-german MiG-29 doing the Pugachev's Cobra. The EF2000 manages only 70° (next gen will have TV) but the Mig-29 got over 90°! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.119.76 ( talk) 09:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Could be written as "The Su-27 family fitted with thrust vectoring"
In this case the Mig-29 TVC prototype should be added to this list
Did this aircraft actually perform a Coba at an airshow? Did it ever have TVC installed or did it always have the Mig-31 engines?
Did this aircraft ever have its engines completed or TVC installed? It didn't perform at any airshows, lets see a citation for it performing a Cobra
This aircraft does not perform true Cobras and DOES NOT have TVC. It may be outfitted with it later ... perhaps this should be mentioned.
Only solid inclusions. These aircraft are only capable of a Cobra with TVC ... does the F-16 MATV/VISTA have a 1-1 thrust to weigh ratio though? If not it cannot perform a true Cobra.
This aircraft does not perform true Cobras and DOES NOT have TVC.
Not sure what the purposes of these parts are. Will delete these last 2 entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 ( talk) 06:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Viktor Pugachev demonstrate 1989 the cobra with a Su-27 without TVC! For a Cobra is TVC not necessary! -- HDP ( talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Eurofighter Typhoon is also able to do it.-- 84.161.79.102 ( talk) 15:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep You're right sir, as we all can see here in the German Cobra Article found here -- Freakschwimmer ( talk) 10:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This article needs citations and definitions!
Plus, as a licensed pilot myself, I can tell that some of the contributors to this article, while enthusiastic on the subject, are not experts on (or even reasonably acquainted with) aerodynamics, and I believe even a cursory read of this article reveals misunderstandings of important concepts, such of angle of attack (too often abbreviated by enthusiasts as AoA ... no one who hasn't actually flown an aircraft with an AoA indicator (sorry ... desktop Flight Sims don't count ... and neither does watching Top Gun) should refer to AoA ... just use the whole term "angle of attack" for those people who don't make a living doing the thing).
Angle of attack is the angle between the mean aerodynamic chord of the aerofoil (the mean chord of the wing, basically) and the RELATIVE airflow. Relative airflow is a function of local wind conditions, aircraft attitude, and the aircraft's airspeed. With low to modest power aircraft pitch attitude and angle of attack are often close to one another in most flight regimes. Most wings aerodynamically "stall" at around 17 degrees angle of attack. High power aircraft can complicate one's understanding, since angle of attack is measured against relative airflow, so a big powerful fighter aircraft flying straight up in a steady climb (not a zoom climb) at 250 knots with a headwind of, say, 10 knots, would have a pitch angle of 90 degrees, but an angle of attack of only 3 or 4 degrees, since the ambient 10 knot wind in the air is contributing very little to the relative wind which would becoming mostly from the 200 knot flow over the wings from the steady climb.
Angle of attack needs definition in the article, and needs to be carefully differentiated from pitch angle. They are not the same thing. For instance ... the article claims that the pilot "pulls back on the stick hard" and gets the aircraft to fly at an angle of attack of "90 - 120 degrees". I believe that angle of attack is being confused with pitch angle by the writer. In addition to this, the ability of an aircraft to utilize a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1, and to use thrust vectoring complicates the discussion of aerodynamics considerably.
Anyway ... any pilot out there who has flown a Harrier or F-22 or other vector thrust plane (no flight simmers please) to help this article out?
J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) ( talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(A suggestion for re-writing this article)
Have a section describing the maneuver's first appearance - Puachev's Cobra in a Su-27. In the current description section, it sounds like a description for how the maneuver was done in that airframe. I've come across those directions in accounts of Pugachev's Cobra, as well as in some flight sims. So that section is accurate for the original appearance of the maneuver in that airframe.
Then have a second section which talks about the maneuver as performed by other aircraft. That way, none of the detailed info on Pugachev's execution in the Su-27 gets conflicted with info for other planes. 68.236.178.38 ( talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Argantael
I have a good perception of what technologies prevent an airframe from experiencing departure at high alphas, and the Lockheed Martin F-35 design doesn't employ them. It shouldn't appear on the list of aircraft known to be able to perform the maneuver because it doesn't have that capability. Somebody wanting to contribute to the article but who wasn't knowledgeable about the subject may have confused the Saab J-35 (which is quite capable of the maneuver and sometimes referred to as the F-35) with the Lockheed Martin F-35. For the purposes of verifying the F-35's capability, I searched the two listed sources and google and only found the J-35/F-35 ambiguity. Mwace ( talk) 13:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am including the PAK FA in the list of thrust vectoring aircraft theoretically capable of the maneuver. The recently declassified images of it indicate both thrust vectoring and oversized leading edge extensions, which themselves are overwhelming evidence to me that the aircraft is capable of the maneuver. If there is a consensus that the PAK FA is capable of Pugachev's Cobra, I will include it in the list of aircraft known to be capable of maneuver. Mwace ( talk) 13:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is mostly WP:OR. The cited references say little if *anything* about the Cobra and serve as the basis of the original research but that has no place here. I've made many smallish changes to the article for review PENDING REMOVAL OF THE OFFENDING MATERIAL. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It was my understanding, from working with AF veterans as well as just being in the aerospace field at the moment, that the
F-14 is capable of performing a Cobra.
To my dismay, I am encountering difficulties finding reliable information online to credit this, merely word of mouth from the pilots I work with. (which is obviously unsubstantiated, but just hear me out)
While the F-14's wings are smaller, and therefore have less surface area, than something like say the
SU-27, or other capable aircraft, the manuver should still work, the deceleration would just be less substantial, thus making it not as useful in arial combat.
I did find
this video, which appears to be an F-14 Tomcat performing a cobra.
-
Deathsythe (
talk)
15:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
is there any actual evidence of this aircraft performing the maneuver? I've seen the Eurofighter perform it but never a Rafale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1yan ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There is this picture with the Rafale A [ [1]] doing it in testing. There are not with the Rafale C or M because it cannot disengage the Alfa limiter, just like the F-22 and Eurofighter can't. Also only pictures with F-22 doing Cobra are with the YF-22 during testing. I don't know how you saw the Eurofighter doing Cobra as it's not controllable over 70 degrees, unlike Rafale and Gripen which because they have close-coupled canard are controllable at up to 100 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DArhengel ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged the phrase "The figure has several combat uses..." as the cited source appears to state exactly the opposite. Perhaps the editor who contributed this text (or anyone for that matter) could provide a citation that would better support this language? This subject is not my personal bailiwick so I'm just askin'. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 11:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Considering that Wikipedia is an American company using American webservers, an American registrar and a largely-American readerbase, it should be important to note that the American dictionary properly spells the word: "maneuver". Also, "it's" is a contraction for "it is" not the posessive of it, which is "its". Let's review: "it's thing" means "it is thing" and makes you look like a moron, while "its thing" makes "thing" a property or posession of "it". Krysee ( talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZ0EalNigo&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.242 ( talk) 10:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The jet appears to be climbing, but the low quality makes it difficult to tell. - Nem1yan ( talk) 17:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pugachev's Cobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
So i think the article should be renamed to "the Cobra maneuver". Mainly due to Pugachev not inventing the maneuver but also because nobody ever calls it Pugachev's Cobra. Its basically always referred to as the cobra maneuver or simply just the cobra.-- Blockhaj ( talk) 11:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to
Cobra maneuver. There seems to be broad consensus that Pugachev's
should be removed from the title. There also seems to be broad consensus that the original nomination was erroneous in its inclusion of
The
. There is also consensus that the manoeuvre is a manoeuvre. The only point upon which there is no consensus is whether to use the English or American English version of the spelling. Therefore, per
MOS:RETAIN, unless the article is, for a good reason, adapted to use the English variant of the spelling, the American version shall remain the title. Should that happen, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination to point towards
Cobra manoeuvre. (
closed by non-admin page mover)
SITH
(talk)
11:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Pugachev's Cobra →
The Cobra maneuver – It's never referred to as Pugachev's Cobra and Pugachev didnt discover the maneuver.
Blockhaj (
talk)
17:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
New discussion 2020.
OK so there is effectively an edit war were people keeps adding the F-22 Raptor but doesn't add any good sources. Written sources are either too unspecified, "the F-22 can do the Cobra" or they specify how to perform it incorrectly, "the F-22 uses its vectoring thrusts to perform the cobra". Video proof is the same deal, either the F-22 just turns sharply which gives it some vapor trails (whatever its called in English) or it uses its thrust vectoring to perform Cobra-esc movement such as maneuvering at stall speeds. A cobra is not initiated via thrust vectoring, it is initiated by elevator control and the fast change of alpha comes from an instability in the aircraft, not avionics. If you look at actual footage of the Cobra performed by jets such as the Su-27 or Saab 35 and compare them to the stall climbs of the F-22 you can easily spot the difference. The Cobra maneuver is natural, the F-22 stall climb is forced. Note that the F-22 is not alone in performing fake Cobra's, Su-30's performs similar maneuvers at airshows where it uses its thrust vectoring to maneuver at stall speeds but still calls it Cobra.
Su-27 performing the Cobra, Time stamped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lENodGzJ2gM&feature=youtu.be&t=55 Note how it uses only its elevators to initiate the Cobra and how the aircraft naturally keeps raising its nose even after the elevators have stopped maneuvering.
Saab 35 performing the Cobra, Time stamped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbN3FucjlJg&feature=youtu.be&t=211 Note how it like the Su-27 just uses its elevators to initiate it and how the aircraft naturally raises its nose. Also note how it dips one of its wings to to not achieve too much lift during the maneuver as the Saab 35 being a double delta has much more initial lift compared to the Su-27.
Now take a look at any video claiming to show an F-22 Performing a Cobra, example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBx6G2O6A4&t=2s, example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUdt6ZSWUsI Just search F-22 Cobra on youtube etc. All of them will show the same thing. The F-22 forcing a stall and then maneuvering using its thrust vectoring and avionics. Sure it is impressive and definitely counts as super maneuverability but it is not a Cobra. The Cobra is Natural, whatever you want to call the F-22's equivalent is not.
-- Blockhaj ( talk) 19:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Largely unreferenced stub of dubious importance that is already mentioned in the main article. Ost ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
People has said that for the f-22’s cobra, there was a vertical altitude gain so it doesn’t count. But in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBx6G2O6A4&t=2s the f-22 barely gains any altitude. The pitch angle was also around 100-110 degrees so I believe that f-22 should be added. Also, J-20 should be removed since there is no evidence. Also, su-57’s cobra are quite similar to how a raptor normally performs a cobra. In this videoat 1:53, the su-57 does a cobra with Atleast 50m of altitude gain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRZ3sZbmjA0 Gamerbirb0928 ( talk) 12:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I wondering if there is a list for all the planes that can perform a cobra maneuver. or if someone somehow knows all the planes that can do the cobra maneuver Experience31 ( talk) 18:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cobra maneuver article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Is there a reason why the French and American aircraft in the list have "citation needed" next to them and the Soviet aircraft do not? A pesky Russian editor attempting to be comical, perhaps? Mojodaddy ( talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You must ask 122.104.81.118 below! -- HDP ( talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No actual tactical importance?
Well, I'm only a flight sim affictionado, so I know nothing about nothing, I'm sure, but performing a hook correctly seems, at least in flight-sim land - to succeed in putting your nose on the target, after which you can shoot at him.
I'm obviously not an expert, but I do believe that shooting and hitting had some trifeling tactical significance. :-) Kim Bruning 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the reference to little tactical use is refering to the Cobra and not the Hook. The Hook is tactically very useful and can be used by many aircraft to fly in one direction but shoot in another. LWF 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed "asstatic" to "aesthetic", as it was probably supposed to be. :) Stealth 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
"made more neutral" for some definition of neutral. :-P Take with a grain of salt. :-) Made Hook a redlink too, I wonder if there's much written on that subject? Kim Bruning 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi I hope I'm posting this sort of thing correctly. This article piqued my interest; I love flight simulators and recently watched the movie "Top Gun" again. Though I understand that film is a Hollywood blockbuster and is not the best representation of actual combat, ACM, or flight in general, it seems to me that "Maverick" attempts something similar to a Cobra. He attempts to bring planes in close behind him, (first Jester early in the movie and then later a MiG-28) and then hits the brakes and tilts the plane upward. After a split second, he re-applies thrust and tilts the plane downward again. Again, I realize that "Top Gun" is not a fantastic source, but could his maneuver be described as a Cobra? I'm just a college student who's interested. Swatkid2 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Compare german wikipedia ( de:Kobramanöver):
Sounds reasonable. Here's another tidbit from aicn (about a movie done with usaf support):
Now the english WP says
No mention of any advantage. Sounds very illogical. Furthermore, when one counts it that until the F22 comes out, no westerner aircraft was able to perform the manoever, this line suddenly sounds like western propaganda ("oh, it's not any good anyway"). Anybody with more details about this? Thanks! Peter S. 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, very insightful. Peter S. 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You have to realize that Top Gun is not an accurate representation. The tactics used are awful, and the planes are not represented accurately. On another note, the F-22 has recently been shown to be capable of doing the cobra. LWF 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"Today, the German Luftwaffe performs the maneuver with cold-war era MiG-29's"#
The German Luftwaffe sold all their Fulcrums to poland 2 years ago.
The F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet can also perform the Cobra, here is video of it, I'm adding them to the list.
Hornet Cobra Video
http://www.139f.com/portal/show/1306635.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.203.139 ( talk) 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Actualy I have seen it for real, and to be honest pilot nearly crash. Evadinggrid ( talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rog3lQn3f2g it did a very high speed one here so there was a slight increase in altitude, but i have seen one perform the maneuver at a lower speed as well
Nem1yan (
talk)
23:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Although it is true that when doing the Cobra maneuver the high energy bleed rate would put the pilot in a very vulnerable position, it is not the maneuver itself that matters. The point-and-shoot maneuverability and "supermanouverability", if properly utilized in air combat, can yield very high tactical value. The key to success in combat with all-aspect missiles is to shoot first. Supermaneuverability allows a pilot to gain a shot opportunity earlier than with conventional maneuverability. Whet the Cobra maneuver clearly demonstrates is enhanced controllability in the pitch axis. 145.99.155.65 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several places in the article where weasel word assertions are made. This is an encyclopedia - we are supposed to be referencing external authorities - it doesn't matter how good the reasoning is above as per the usefulness or otherwise of this aero, authoritative external sources must be cited. I have inserted one {{fact}}. More needed. Paul Beardsell 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The controls are doubtless not just centralised to recover - a more deliberate control input will be required. Where does this (dis)information come from? No citation will cause deletion of an otherwise excellent diagram. Paul Beardsell 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it plausible that neutralizing the elevator could bring the nose back to the horizon. At such extreme angles of attack, virtually all airfoils produce strong negative pitching moments. So, unless the CG is behind about 50% of the main wing's MAC, the jet would tend to pitch down (from >90°) regardless of elevator position. Furthermore, it might even be necessary to apply up elevator to keep the nose from swinging through level into negative angles of attack. 68.5.141.240 ( talk) 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The disengaging of an alpha limiter is not an essential feature of this stunt unless the aircraft is fitted with one and not all are. Deleted this text. But still a problem with the diagram which, if not fixed, must be removed. Paul Beardsell 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am a little older than some here, but I remember the Harrier pulling "thrust-up" maneuvers very successfully in combat during the Falklands war - the BBC showed several interviews with pilots supporting this. So I don't see how it can be said to be of little use. If the arguement is that modern long-range missiles make it obselete, then surely that is true of ALL air combat maneuvers - yet every airforce in the world still trains pilots in them - so I guess a lot of top military strategists must see a certain value in them!! Sounds like a touch of patriotism before neutrality to me. Laudable, but not fair-minded. 82.25.243.109 13:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've just remade my Cobra drawing and re-uploaded it (with no any ambiguous instructions or other extra text). Please tell me what you think. If there are minor changes to be made and you want to make them for me, the Illustrator file is provided. -- Henrickson 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read this one? http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj88/spr88/siuru.html
What do you all think? Perhaps certain governments think there might be something to it - just think of the amount of money they spend on it! 82.25.255.170 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is some suggestion that certain manoevers can also confuse modern "doppler" radar systems - for example a vertical dive to a very low level. The dive, because it does not contain a forwards element of motion is said to make the "doppler" radar lose its lock.
Several Soviet aircraft have enhanced optical detection systems so as not to rely on the doppler radar. Do Western aircraft have this?
The "Cobra" may also be able to break radar, although I'm not sure if the effect is long enough.
Certainly, a "Cobra" ending in a vertical dive to one side or the other would seem to fit.
Any comments?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya
22:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT possible to do Pugachev's Cobra in the "MiG-29" per se, because that aircraft is traditional hydro-mechanic steering. Only analogue or digital fly-by-wire planes, like the Su-27 or the "MiG-29M" (MiG-35) can do the true 110 degrees cobra. The ex-german (now polish) MiG-29 planes were pushrod steering, so they simply cannot do the cobra. The original MiG-29A/B can only do the tailslide. 82.131.210.162 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any reason why the lack of fly-by-wire would preclude the Cobra. In fact, I have seen videos of Saab 35 Drakens, which do not have fly-by-wire, performing the maneuver (albeit at only 90-100°). I'm not affirming or denying your claim that the MiG-29 is incapable of performing Pugachev's Cobra. I'm just pointing out that the maneuver can be performed by human pilots without a computer's help. 68.5.141.240 ( talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
video clip Mig-29's can indeed cobra Nem1yan ( talk) 03:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
F22 can only do the Cobra with Thrust-Vectoring. So it's in the wrong category. I have moved it to "Thrust vectoring aircraft, such as:" Second: We really need citations! @ 82.131.210.162, I saw the ex-german MiG-29 doing the Pugachev's Cobra. The EF2000 manages only 70° (next gen will have TV) but the Mig-29 got over 90°! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.119.76 ( talk) 09:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Could be written as "The Su-27 family fitted with thrust vectoring"
In this case the Mig-29 TVC prototype should be added to this list
Did this aircraft actually perform a Coba at an airshow? Did it ever have TVC installed or did it always have the Mig-31 engines?
Did this aircraft ever have its engines completed or TVC installed? It didn't perform at any airshows, lets see a citation for it performing a Cobra
This aircraft does not perform true Cobras and DOES NOT have TVC. It may be outfitted with it later ... perhaps this should be mentioned.
Only solid inclusions. These aircraft are only capable of a Cobra with TVC ... does the F-16 MATV/VISTA have a 1-1 thrust to weigh ratio though? If not it cannot perform a true Cobra.
This aircraft does not perform true Cobras and DOES NOT have TVC.
Not sure what the purposes of these parts are. Will delete these last 2 entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 ( talk) 06:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Viktor Pugachev demonstrate 1989 the cobra with a Su-27 without TVC! For a Cobra is TVC not necessary! -- HDP ( talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Eurofighter Typhoon is also able to do it.-- 84.161.79.102 ( talk) 15:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep You're right sir, as we all can see here in the German Cobra Article found here -- Freakschwimmer ( talk) 10:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This article needs citations and definitions!
Plus, as a licensed pilot myself, I can tell that some of the contributors to this article, while enthusiastic on the subject, are not experts on (or even reasonably acquainted with) aerodynamics, and I believe even a cursory read of this article reveals misunderstandings of important concepts, such of angle of attack (too often abbreviated by enthusiasts as AoA ... no one who hasn't actually flown an aircraft with an AoA indicator (sorry ... desktop Flight Sims don't count ... and neither does watching Top Gun) should refer to AoA ... just use the whole term "angle of attack" for those people who don't make a living doing the thing).
Angle of attack is the angle between the mean aerodynamic chord of the aerofoil (the mean chord of the wing, basically) and the RELATIVE airflow. Relative airflow is a function of local wind conditions, aircraft attitude, and the aircraft's airspeed. With low to modest power aircraft pitch attitude and angle of attack are often close to one another in most flight regimes. Most wings aerodynamically "stall" at around 17 degrees angle of attack. High power aircraft can complicate one's understanding, since angle of attack is measured against relative airflow, so a big powerful fighter aircraft flying straight up in a steady climb (not a zoom climb) at 250 knots with a headwind of, say, 10 knots, would have a pitch angle of 90 degrees, but an angle of attack of only 3 or 4 degrees, since the ambient 10 knot wind in the air is contributing very little to the relative wind which would becoming mostly from the 200 knot flow over the wings from the steady climb.
Angle of attack needs definition in the article, and needs to be carefully differentiated from pitch angle. They are not the same thing. For instance ... the article claims that the pilot "pulls back on the stick hard" and gets the aircraft to fly at an angle of attack of "90 - 120 degrees". I believe that angle of attack is being confused with pitch angle by the writer. In addition to this, the ability of an aircraft to utilize a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1, and to use thrust vectoring complicates the discussion of aerodynamics considerably.
Anyway ... any pilot out there who has flown a Harrier or F-22 or other vector thrust plane (no flight simmers please) to help this article out?
J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) ( talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(A suggestion for re-writing this article)
Have a section describing the maneuver's first appearance - Puachev's Cobra in a Su-27. In the current description section, it sounds like a description for how the maneuver was done in that airframe. I've come across those directions in accounts of Pugachev's Cobra, as well as in some flight sims. So that section is accurate for the original appearance of the maneuver in that airframe.
Then have a second section which talks about the maneuver as performed by other aircraft. That way, none of the detailed info on Pugachev's execution in the Su-27 gets conflicted with info for other planes. 68.236.178.38 ( talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Argantael
I have a good perception of what technologies prevent an airframe from experiencing departure at high alphas, and the Lockheed Martin F-35 design doesn't employ them. It shouldn't appear on the list of aircraft known to be able to perform the maneuver because it doesn't have that capability. Somebody wanting to contribute to the article but who wasn't knowledgeable about the subject may have confused the Saab J-35 (which is quite capable of the maneuver and sometimes referred to as the F-35) with the Lockheed Martin F-35. For the purposes of verifying the F-35's capability, I searched the two listed sources and google and only found the J-35/F-35 ambiguity. Mwace ( talk) 13:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am including the PAK FA in the list of thrust vectoring aircraft theoretically capable of the maneuver. The recently declassified images of it indicate both thrust vectoring and oversized leading edge extensions, which themselves are overwhelming evidence to me that the aircraft is capable of the maneuver. If there is a consensus that the PAK FA is capable of Pugachev's Cobra, I will include it in the list of aircraft known to be capable of maneuver. Mwace ( talk) 13:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is mostly WP:OR. The cited references say little if *anything* about the Cobra and serve as the basis of the original research but that has no place here. I've made many smallish changes to the article for review PENDING REMOVAL OF THE OFFENDING MATERIAL. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It was my understanding, from working with AF veterans as well as just being in the aerospace field at the moment, that the
F-14 is capable of performing a Cobra.
To my dismay, I am encountering difficulties finding reliable information online to credit this, merely word of mouth from the pilots I work with. (which is obviously unsubstantiated, but just hear me out)
While the F-14's wings are smaller, and therefore have less surface area, than something like say the
SU-27, or other capable aircraft, the manuver should still work, the deceleration would just be less substantial, thus making it not as useful in arial combat.
I did find
this video, which appears to be an F-14 Tomcat performing a cobra.
-
Deathsythe (
talk)
15:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
is there any actual evidence of this aircraft performing the maneuver? I've seen the Eurofighter perform it but never a Rafale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1yan ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There is this picture with the Rafale A [ [1]] doing it in testing. There are not with the Rafale C or M because it cannot disengage the Alfa limiter, just like the F-22 and Eurofighter can't. Also only pictures with F-22 doing Cobra are with the YF-22 during testing. I don't know how you saw the Eurofighter doing Cobra as it's not controllable over 70 degrees, unlike Rafale and Gripen which because they have close-coupled canard are controllable at up to 100 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DArhengel ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged the phrase "The figure has several combat uses..." as the cited source appears to state exactly the opposite. Perhaps the editor who contributed this text (or anyone for that matter) could provide a citation that would better support this language? This subject is not my personal bailiwick so I'm just askin'. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 11:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Considering that Wikipedia is an American company using American webservers, an American registrar and a largely-American readerbase, it should be important to note that the American dictionary properly spells the word: "maneuver". Also, "it's" is a contraction for "it is" not the posessive of it, which is "its". Let's review: "it's thing" means "it is thing" and makes you look like a moron, while "its thing" makes "thing" a property or posession of "it". Krysee ( talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZ0EalNigo&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.242 ( talk) 10:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The jet appears to be climbing, but the low quality makes it difficult to tell. - Nem1yan ( talk) 17:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pugachev's Cobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
So i think the article should be renamed to "the Cobra maneuver". Mainly due to Pugachev not inventing the maneuver but also because nobody ever calls it Pugachev's Cobra. Its basically always referred to as the cobra maneuver or simply just the cobra.-- Blockhaj ( talk) 11:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to
Cobra maneuver. There seems to be broad consensus that Pugachev's
should be removed from the title. There also seems to be broad consensus that the original nomination was erroneous in its inclusion of
The
. There is also consensus that the manoeuvre is a manoeuvre. The only point upon which there is no consensus is whether to use the English or American English version of the spelling. Therefore, per
MOS:RETAIN, unless the article is, for a good reason, adapted to use the English variant of the spelling, the American version shall remain the title. Should that happen, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination to point towards
Cobra manoeuvre. (
closed by non-admin page mover)
SITH
(talk)
11:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Pugachev's Cobra →
The Cobra maneuver – It's never referred to as Pugachev's Cobra and Pugachev didnt discover the maneuver.
Blockhaj (
talk)
17:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
New discussion 2020.
OK so there is effectively an edit war were people keeps adding the F-22 Raptor but doesn't add any good sources. Written sources are either too unspecified, "the F-22 can do the Cobra" or they specify how to perform it incorrectly, "the F-22 uses its vectoring thrusts to perform the cobra". Video proof is the same deal, either the F-22 just turns sharply which gives it some vapor trails (whatever its called in English) or it uses its thrust vectoring to perform Cobra-esc movement such as maneuvering at stall speeds. A cobra is not initiated via thrust vectoring, it is initiated by elevator control and the fast change of alpha comes from an instability in the aircraft, not avionics. If you look at actual footage of the Cobra performed by jets such as the Su-27 or Saab 35 and compare them to the stall climbs of the F-22 you can easily spot the difference. The Cobra maneuver is natural, the F-22 stall climb is forced. Note that the F-22 is not alone in performing fake Cobra's, Su-30's performs similar maneuvers at airshows where it uses its thrust vectoring to maneuver at stall speeds but still calls it Cobra.
Su-27 performing the Cobra, Time stamped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lENodGzJ2gM&feature=youtu.be&t=55 Note how it uses only its elevators to initiate the Cobra and how the aircraft naturally keeps raising its nose even after the elevators have stopped maneuvering.
Saab 35 performing the Cobra, Time stamped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbN3FucjlJg&feature=youtu.be&t=211 Note how it like the Su-27 just uses its elevators to initiate it and how the aircraft naturally raises its nose. Also note how it dips one of its wings to to not achieve too much lift during the maneuver as the Saab 35 being a double delta has much more initial lift compared to the Su-27.
Now take a look at any video claiming to show an F-22 Performing a Cobra, example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBx6G2O6A4&t=2s, example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUdt6ZSWUsI Just search F-22 Cobra on youtube etc. All of them will show the same thing. The F-22 forcing a stall and then maneuvering using its thrust vectoring and avionics. Sure it is impressive and definitely counts as super maneuverability but it is not a Cobra. The Cobra is Natural, whatever you want to call the F-22's equivalent is not.
-- Blockhaj ( talk) 19:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Largely unreferenced stub of dubious importance that is already mentioned in the main article. Ost ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
People has said that for the f-22’s cobra, there was a vertical altitude gain so it doesn’t count. But in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBx6G2O6A4&t=2s the f-22 barely gains any altitude. The pitch angle was also around 100-110 degrees so I believe that f-22 should be added. Also, J-20 should be removed since there is no evidence. Also, su-57’s cobra are quite similar to how a raptor normally performs a cobra. In this videoat 1:53, the su-57 does a cobra with Atleast 50m of altitude gain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRZ3sZbmjA0 Gamerbirb0928 ( talk) 12:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I wondering if there is a list for all the planes that can perform a cobra maneuver. or if someone somehow knows all the planes that can do the cobra maneuver Experience31 ( talk) 18:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)