F-22 - Cobra Maneuver

Anyone care to list the various reasons stated here about why the Raptor couldn't do the Cobra?

*No vortex aerodynamics
*Russian aerodynamics are better
*Stealth gets in the way
*Stable airframe

Anything else?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by JFrazier]

Anyone who said that F-22 can't do a Cobra is not looking at it objectively. The F-22 is very agile. It lacks the WVR missiles to maximise this attribute, but it's certainly no shopping trolly when it comes to turns.

Having said that I'd be very surprised if it was as super-agile as the Su-30/MiG-29 with TVC because these two have essentially 3-D TVC whereas the F-22 is strictly 2D. Before anyone tells me that Su-30MKI is 2-D TVC, yes, but they are positioned at 45 degrees to give a 3-D effect, unlike the F-22.

Who better to ask then the Cheif Test Pilot.

I emailed Rob Fuller, of the F-22 Raptor Development team, and he gave me a direct answer of what a test pilot said about the cobra Manuever.

Joe,
Here's an answer to your question from our chief test pilot:

Yes we can do the cobra maneuver. It is in fact part of the Advanced
Handling Training the new pilots get. In essence, from level flight,
300 KCAS you abruptly go full aft stick, the aircraft will pitch nose up
to 90 degrees of pitch. You then abruptly push the stick full forward
and the nose pitches back down to level flight. It's an interesting
maneuver to watch but has questionable tactical utility (except in the
movies) as you bleed off a significant amount of energy during the
maneuver and pretty much make yourself a sitting duck.

Bret Luedke
F/A-22 Chief Test Pilot

Hope that clears up any confusion.

Planeman, I think you have to take everything under consideration, its aerodynamic design, large and numerous control surfaces, its highly optimizes FBW system, the 2D vectoring, engine performance and last but not least configuration. Now I don't know just how maneuverable the F-22 is but the driver in that video doing the "cobra" was Lt. Col. Shower (call sign "Dozer") and here is what he has to say about the F-22's maneuverability. I can't help but take his word for it, he has the credentials to back up what he's saying.

Link 1
Link 2

Originally posted by JFrazier
Anyone care to list the various reasons stated here about why the Raptor couldn't do the Cobra?

*No vortex aerodynamics
*Russian aerodynamics are better
*Stealth gets in the way
*Stable airframe

Anything else?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by JFrazier]

Cobra is all about pitch authority up to and through extreme AoA, lateral stability at extreme AoA, and also engine tolerance to operating in such conditions, i.e. they don't stall.

You don't need to generate lift at 60 deg AoA to do a cobra, you just need to be able to sustain a pitch rate to 90 degrees+, and then of course retain the authority to induce a negative pitch rate to get the nose down again.


Anyway, to your specific points:

- Vortices; the f-22 induces its vortices off the forebody (the engine intakes), while not providing the same strength as an equivalent LERX, it does the job.

- The Flanker/Fulcrum series' have pukka LERXs, so it can be expected they produce a more intense vortex, hence more lift at extreme AoA.

- Stealth in the way; Its certainly another design factor that requires compromise, for instance the F-22 was not allowed to use ventral fins, even though the stability and control crowd wanted it, the low-observable people said no-no.

- I'm pretty sure the F-22 is an unstable airframe (in pitch).

Kilcoo, I was just listing the reasons various people have posted of why the Raptor wasn't manueverable. I know that you know your stuff.

- I'm pretty sure the F-22 is an unstable airframe (in pitch).
yes I suppose so but the su-27/35/37 air frame seems to be more unstable the vedios seems to be awsome.
and of course this seems to be amzing.

yes I suppose so but the su-27/35/37 air frame seems to be more unstable the vedios seems to be awsome.

You can't really tell airframe instability from a video. A good FBW sytem will mask that.

here are the details of the airframe.

www.flymig.com...
The Su-27's high thrust-to-weight ratio and refined aerodynamics allow superb flight characteristics at high angles of attack. The Su-33 features canards for improved maneuverabilty as well as a strengthened airframe for carrier operations. An interesting feature of the Su-27 is its autopilot which is able to return the aircraft to right-side-up level flight at any altitude when the pilot presses a "panic-button." Besides the Su-33, the basic Su-27 airframe has also been developed into the Su-30, Su-35 and Su-37 fighters as well as the Su-34 bomber.

these were taken from fly mig.com
so now you under stand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - added link and 'ex' tags

[edit on 7-9-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by phsyco
here are the details of the airframe.
The Su-27's high thrust-to-weight ratio and refined aerodynamics allow superb flight characteristics at high angles of attack. The Su-33 features canards for improved maneuverabilty as well as a strengthened airframe for carrier operations. An interesting feature of the Su-27 is its autopilot which is able to return the aircraft to right-side-up level flight at any altitude when the pilot presses a "panic-button." Besides the Su-33, the basic Su-27 airframe has also been developed into the Su-30, Su-35 and Su-37 fighters as well as the Su-34 bomber.
so now you under stand.

Understand what? The F-22 is also an unstable airframe, with TVC, all-moving control surfaces, and internal weapons carriage for less drag. It also has a higher thurst to weight ratio than any Flanker in service now and has great characteristics at high angles of attack.

Now you understand.

Here's your chance: post up an Su-37 vs F-22 thread and let's debate.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by JFrazier]

sure but why do i have a feeling that im going to have to pay bigtime.big big time.lets start debating.most are going to go against the 37.but lets see>