Talk:Pugachev's Cobra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] General discussion

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)

Why did you change "horizontal plane" to "plane of an opponent"? It's much easier to understand to talk about horizontal and vertical plane imho, especially to a reader not familiar with the subject. Also it would be nice to elaborate on what makes the hook more useful. - Dammit 17:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Because horizontal and vertical is basically silly. If an enemy is in the plane 45 degrees to your aircraft, you roll to align your aircraft, and then pull the same maneuver. If it's at 32 degrees, or 15, same story. If the plane you're turning on just happens to coincide exactly with the vertical plane, congratulations, you've just performed a cobra maneuver that's actually effective in combat. <innocent look> Though granted, that would ony be by happenstance. Kim Bruning 12:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok, got it.. I was thinking it was meant more along the lines of retaining speed, but what you said makes sense too. - Dammit 13:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite comprehend what it is you're trying to illustrate. Couldyou differentiate between "plane" as it is in geometry and "plane" as a reference to another aircraft? Thanks. -- Oceanhahn 02:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Geometric planes. --Henrickson 09:18, 10 June 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)

Yes, that was the Cobra. Jigen III 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that was not a Cobra. A Cobra involves a significant enough amount of change in angle of attack to maintain nearly level flight. Turning your nose upwards in an aircraft like the F-14 as dramatically as an Su-27 does either causes the aircraft to go into a stupor or to gain elevation. The whole point of a Cobra is that you change your angle of attack so quickly and dramatically that your control surfaces do not manipulate the facing of your aircraft and instead turn the entire airframe into a giant wind-brake, slowing you in the most dramatic way. The maneouvre you referred to is just braking by climbing. This is like comparing turning a corner conventionally in a car to driving sideways for a brief period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda?

Compare german wikipedia (de:Kobramanöver):

"soll es im Luftnahkampf dazu dienen, mittels plötzlicher Reduzierung der Fluggeschwindigkeit den verfolgenden Gegner zum Überholen zu zwingen um so selbst in eine günstige Schussposition zu gelangen"
(english:) "in dogfight, the manoever should force the persecuting enemy to overtake through sudden reduction of one's own airspeed and bring oneself into a good position to shoot."

Sounds reasonable. Here's another tidbit from aicn (about a movie done with usaf support):

(about the new F22) "It's a stealth jet and, most importantly, it can stop suddenly and hover (think of it rising its nose at a 60 degree angle and just stopping) which would allow the jet to take out enemy fighters as they scream past, unable to stop or turn in time. It's supposed to be a pilot's dream of a machine."

Now the english WP says

"Many Western experts on ACM believe this maneuver has absolutely no value in actual air combat."

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)

I think that anybody will agree that in a dogfight using cannons the Cobra has combat value, however as can be read in the article about dogfights, the general trend is that air combat nowadays is fought out with missiles (although that doctrine is criticized too). On top of that, the exit speed of the Cobra is very low, limiting the chances of actually doing something right after the enemy aircraft passes.
In a war like both Gulf Wars and Yugoslavia the sides were so unequal that the Cobra would be of no use, the few fights that did occur were with AWACS support, with long range missiles on one side and generally with few aircraft. However should anything like World War II ever happen again, with huge amounts of fighters on both sides, the Cobra might prove useful after all. The more airplanes are involved, the more likely close-range aerial combat is to occur, which is where the Cobra can prove its use. - Dammit 12:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, very insightful. Peter S. 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys! we all love the corba but it has little importance in dog fight.
Reason 1: when you are defensive, your are trying to shake off the enemy behind you. Cobra can't achieve this unless your enemy is very close to you, in fact, in his guns sight. How often does it happen?
Reason 2: Your enemy can do the excat same thing, then you can just wait to be shot down.
Readon 3: We all know that corba makes your plane's attitude and airspeed very vunerable(stalled flight)and modern ACM flys in fomation, corba makes your plane an easy target for your enemy's wingman.
However, it is a spectacular airshow maneuver that shows off the plane's maneverability.
p.s. planes in airshows are not loaded. Low wing loading makes the plane a lot more manueverable.
Question to Peter S.: I think a lot of western aircraft can do cobra. Didn't the F-14 do that in "Top Gun"?
En51cm 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)J.Mak 11/9/2006

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.

As J.Mak said, the Cobra as such is quite useless in dog fight. Similar maneuvers, like tail slide and Harrier's VIFF are similarly of little use. And using flaps and/or air brakes to reduce your airspeed to make pursuing plane overshoot may work in books and movies, but seldom in real life.
Why? Well, the first rule in aerial combat is to maintain your energy. Either as speed, or altitude, or preferably both. Maneuvers which bleed off your speed quickly - like Cobra or VIFF - are big no-no. They MAY work in that the other plane pursuing you does indeed overshoot - but you are left with too little energy to give chase, and you are sitting duck to anyone else looking for target. Jets are not dragsters - their acceleration is quite slow and it takes time to build up your airspeed again, unless you sacrifice altitude.
So why these maneuvers are done? Well, even though the maneuver itself has little actual use, it does indicate about aircraft's agility, controllability in high AoA and engine reliability, response and power. A plane which can execute Cobra is bad news in a dog fight, even if the maneuver itself makes little sense tactically.
Is Su-27 only fighter capable of executing Cobra? No. I should think that pretty much every fighter flown since 1975 can and has executed Cobra-like maneuvers. This includes F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, Gripen etc. As said, there's a video of F-22 doing a Cobra. Such extreme maneuvers are part of the test flight programme. Reason why the Russians are only ones so far who have performed it in air shows is simply safety - Cobra is quite demanding for the engines and risk for turbine stall is non-trivial. Western fighters have performed the maneuvers in high altitudes to make sure there's ample time to relit the engine or make a safe ejection if someone goes wrong. Russians seem unconcerned about this possibility - either they have better inlets and engines for high-AoA maneuvers, or they are simply crazier, pick one. --Mikoyan21 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the F-22 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have been doing Cobra's quite a bit at airshows recently. --Evil.Merlin 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Mikoyan21, you are looking at this from a fairly odd point of view for someone with a name such as yourself. First of all ... sure maintaining energy is a very important factor in ACM but you seem to be overlooking the other MAJOR advantage that the Russians developed for their Mig-29 and Su-27, the off-bore-sight short range missile. No decent pilot would have to give chase to an enemy that shoots past them NOR aim their nose to fire when equipped with a missile like that. Put this in the context of the 1980's where the Russians would've been facing aircraft without either of these decisive advantages and the package seems rather complete. In a lot of air to air engagements the more agile aircraft has been able to consistently force their opponent to close the distance between them to fire off a shot. This has been the experience of USAF and Israeli pilots facing Mig's since the Vietnam war. The Mig-29 and Su-27 are more maneouvreable and higher thrust to weight then their Western contemporaries meaning should one come at them from behind it is a matter of time before the distance is closed and they can perform a Cobra, lining up the perfect R-73 shot. Additionally, lets examine WHY an Su-27 and Mig-29 can perform a Cobra; A - thrust to weight greater then 1-1. B - intakes capable of sucking air when at an angle of attack of 90 degrees. C - Control surfaces that can rotate to be effective at 90 degrees angle of attack. No contemporary Western aircraft INCLUDING the F/A-18 qualifies for all 3 of these design elements to the degree the Mig-29 and Su-27 do. Sure, the F/A-18E gets close, and therefore gets close to performing the Cobra maneouvre (reaching 60 degrees AoA) but short of the F-22A & Rafale no aircraft in a Western military has done a concise Pugachev's Cobra because quite simply they are not designed to be capable of one. Give these aircraft higher thrust, better designed intacks and control surfaces that can control an aircraft at 90 degrees AoA and then they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hornet Cobra

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).

[edit] Actual Importance

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)

[edit] making it up

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)

[edit] problem with the diagram text

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)

[edit] alpha limiter

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)


[edit] Harrier VIFF was used in combat !

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)

I Second this point of view. If you look at the rates of short range vs. medium range vs. long range missile kills these days its pretty clear short range is still important, if not more important then the other 2 ranges. In fact the only instance of long range kills occured in the 1980's during the Iran Iraq war and the medium range kills constitute less then half of 4th generation aircraft victories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New drawing added

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)

[edit] Tactical importance of "odd" / "airshow" manoeuvres

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)

[edit] Certainly not the germans

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)

[edit] F22

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)

I heard the Fulcrum A could only do it if it approached facing 30 degrees downwards. Was this the case or did you perhaps see the TVC Fulcrum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested edit of thrust vectoring aircraft capable of maneouvre

  1. The Su-30 'Flanker';
  2. The Su-35 Super Flanker
  3. The Su-37 'Flanker-F';

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

  1. The Su-47 'Berkut';

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?

  1. The MiG 1.42;

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

  1. The Eurofighter Typhoon;

This aircraft does not perform true Cobras and DOES NOT have TVC. It may be outfitted with it later ... perhaps this should be mentioned.

  1. The F-22 Raptor;
  2. The F-15 ACTIVE;
  3. The F-16 MATV/VISTA;
  4. The NASA Rockwell-MBB X-31

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.

  1. The J-35 Draken;

This aircraft does not perform true Cobras and DOES NOT have TVC.

  1. Russian fighters, designed for high maneuverability, are known for performing this maneuver at air shows for dramatic effect.
  2. Until recently, the German Luftwaffe have performed the maneuver with Cold-War era MiG-29s (for example at the air show for the Royal Dutch Air Force at Gilze-Rijen Airforce Base, in 2002).

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)