Jump to content

Talk:Cobra maneuver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations Needed

[edit]

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)[reply]

You must ask 122.104.81.118 below! --HDP (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but MiGs and Su s do have thrust vectoring etc. 2607:FEA8:1F1B:3D60:28E8:3E28:4E7B:A875 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changed "asstatic" to "aesthetic", as it was probably supposed to be. :) Stealth 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Geometric planes. --Henrickson 09:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, that was the Cobra. Jigen III 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Propaganda?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hornet Cobra

[edit]

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).[reply]

Actualy I have seen it for real, and to be honest pilot nearly crash. Evadinggrid (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Ii can't see any cobra maneuver in this video. At 2:30 it looks like a transition from horizontal to near vertical flight and back and while the aircraft might be flying at a relative high angle of attack you should keep in mind that AOT is measured between wing an the actual flight direction, so an aircraft climbing at an i. e. 45° angle with its nose pointing up in a 70° degree angle is not performing the cobra maneuver. 77.11.203.111 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Importance

[edit]

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)[reply]

making it up

[edit]

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)[reply]

problem with the diagram text

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

alpha limiter

[edit]

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)[reply]


Harrier VIFF was used in combat !

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New drawing added

[edit]

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)[reply]

Tactical importance of "odd" / "airshow" manoeuvres

[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Certainly not the germans

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

video clip Mig-29's can indeed cobra Nem1yan (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F22

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Suggested edit of thrust vectoring aircraft capable of maneouvre

[edit]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Aircrafts

[edit]

The Eurofighter Typhoon is also able to do it.-- 84.161.79.102 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It isnt sourced in the German article either... so no, it cant be added. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and definitions PLEASE!

[edit]

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)[reply]


Dear J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) I am an aviation enthusiast years before flight simulation became a mainstream occupation for many people. Additionally, I am the author of the questioned phrases so I think we can discuss them as much as you want. First things first: I never flew a plane by myself and I don't think it will ever happened. Anyway, I know many things about aircraft in general since this is my obsession from the early years of my life. And I mean early. About the "90 - 120 degrees": my source is the book "Fundamentals of Fighter Design" by Ray Whitford ISBN 1-86126-664-2. And yes he clearly states 120 degrees AoA. At the "peak" of the maneuver the plane looks towards God and travels forward, so the relative airflow strikes the "keel" of the plane. Consequently such a high number of AoA is justified. About "pulls back on the stick hard" Whitford says that the aircraft must pass through the region of 15 to 20 degrees quickly, since there is the "greatest tendency for nose-slice due to asymmetric vortex shedding from the long forebody". Now we can understand why the pilot cannot play with the stick and he has to "pull hard". And I am sorry to say, but no western-aircraft pilot can help on that: only the Russians and generally those who flew that very aircraft (yes the word is for the Sukhois).
I also wrote about the AoA and g limiter which I don't know how accurate can be, but it is true. Whitford (again) says that "the Flanker's FBW is switched off to allow extremely rapid tailplane deflection" He says FBW aka Fly By Wire. But wait! Can't we admit that an "AoA limiter" is a subsystem of FBW? I think we can because this is one of the main reasons of existence of the FBW. G limiter is something questionable since there is evidence (<-weasel, I know) of pilots who had over-g, suffered GLOC and crashed, but this is not proven or officially recorded. Again, flanker pilots could help us.
And finally I wrote the GLOC version and someone, I think Psb777, replaced it with "loss of consciousness" which links to GLOC. So we agree that it is G-induced loss of consciousness. If we don't "like" the ugly GLOC which also reminds us of the pistol, we have to write: "...the pilot may suffer G-induced loss of consciousness, also stated as G-LOC.
Whoever likes to discuss this subject, feel free to write. I am an open - minded person. By the way, the citation is absolutely non-existent and some "sites" are misleading. That's why I wanted to contribute with my own part of knowledge. Greetings to everyone.
Astromahitis (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break it up

[edit]

(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[reply]

Very confident that the U.S. F-35 is not capable of this maneuver

[edit]

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)[reply]

PAK FA

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

F-14 Capabilities

[edit]

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)[reply]

I have heard that it could perform a "mini-cobra", but it was incapable of performing a the full maneuver. If you can find a reliable source, that would be great. Thanks, Aaron mcd (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dassault Rafale

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


True Cobra?

[edit]
After doing a fair bit of research it appears that the definition of the cobra according to this page is flawed. This page relies entirely on the Russian definition of the cobra maneuver, even though the maneuver has been performed by numerous aircraft worldwide. The problem with using the Russian su-27 as the prime and only example is that different planes of course have different characteristics, and these characteristics influence an aircraft's performance in maneuvers (like the cobra). An F-18 Super Hornet is fully capable of achieving high angles of attack (in excess of 90 degrees) for extended periods of time while retaining control (just as the Su-27 does while performing a cobra maneuver). The difference arrives when you factor in both aircraft's individual weight, thrust, and wing loading.
The F-18 is a light aircraft with high thrust, so even when it enters into high alpha maneuvers it has a tendency to climb (same with the mig-29 family). The Su-27 on the other hand is a very large and heavy aircraft, so when it enters into high alpha maneuvers it wont climb and in full combat armament it actually has had a tendency to begin to fall (the Su-30mki for example has this disadvantage). The Saab-35 Draken was the first aircraft to perform the maneuver on film, and even though it achieves high alpha and the plane brakes very suddenly the maneuver looks drastically different than with the Su-27.
Any aircraft able to pitch it's nose up suddenly to an angle of 90 degrees or greater and then pitch back into level flight without losing control. In order for a plane to be added to the list there needs to be clear video evidence of the aircraft meeting these criteria. Nem1yan (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Uses?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Language Cleanup

[edit]

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)[reply]

If you find fault with the grammar in an article then feel free to improve it. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwans IDF doing a cobra ?

[edit]

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)[reply]

The jet appears to be climbing, but the low quality makes it difficult to tell. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article to "the Cobra maneuver"

[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 24 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Sorry, totally missed ur comment @Old Naval Rooftops:. Well my reasoning for having "the" at the start of the name is because i have no clue how to move a page to a new name which already exists as a redirect.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that we have a WP:ENGVAR issue here, given "maneuver" is an Americanism and Commonwealth English uses "manoeuvre". I appreciate the article uses the American spelling, but I'm not sure the title should favour one or the other as it hasn't done until now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point @Necrothesp:. I guess British English is the official international standard and we should go with their spelling. So Cobra manoeuvre would be a better suited move.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "official international standard" for the English language. ENGVAR specifically states that either is acceptable, so long as it's consistent; its subsection MOS:RETAIN indicates we should retain the existent American English spelling. O.N.R. (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

F-22 2020 discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

In the YouTube links you showed for the f-22, there is barely any climb. And also, the pitch angle was 100-110 so it’s fair to call it a cobra. Recent su-57 demos show a lot of climb in their ‘cobras’ so if su-57 counts as being able to cobra, f-22 should too Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Cobra Turn into Cobra maneuver#Derivatives of the Cobra

[edit]

Largely unreferenced stub of dubious importance that is already mentioned in the main article. Ost (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In support.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kyteto (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F-22& Su-57 cobra

[edit]

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)[reply]

At what timestamp does the F-22 perform a Cobra? All i see is either cobra-esc stalls at low speed using post stall maneuvering with thrust vectoring. As for the J-20 and Su-57, there is no good evidence for them agreed. For the J-20 there is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB1NfbCrZ4M&t=18s but it looks really fake since the first clip shows a high pitched climb and the next one thrust hovering (note the vapour trails going missing). Since its two clips its probably spliced. The Su-57 video above does indicate that the Su-57 can perform a Cobra at 1:50, but the footage has no good reference for speed and altitude change (i'd say 400 to 500-ish kph from the exhaust trails). A true cobra needs higher speeds of 700+ kph, since too low speed will fully stall the aircraft. The video also shows the use of thrust vectoring, which in my book is cheating, since the cobra comes from an aerodynamic instability in the airframe and not some angled push from behind.--Blockhaj (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The j-20 video is a promotional video, and it never performed anything close to a cobra in the demos. The f-22 performs a cobra at 0:38 in here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBx6G2O6A4&t=38s Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think thrust vectoring is cheating. Look at the sources for the mig-29A cobra. It doesn’t even perform a proper cobra, it pitches up to only 70 degrees and flops back down. Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The F-22 maneuver shown at 0:38 is not a true cobra. First of, its spliced. It is missing several images during the 0:37 second. Go to 0:37 and use [,] and [.] to move image by image. From this we cannot tell how fast the complete pullup is. Second, the overall movement looks nothing like a cobra except that the aircraft stands on its tail. It looks like the pilot is pulling up while reducing thrust, possibly (most likely) using thrust vectoring for the complete pull. This stalls the aircraft fully as shown by the background not moving, which is a hover not a cobra. Afterwards the pilot applies forward thrust, initiating a climb to gain enough energy to safely level the aircraft out. Its simply a post stall maneuver reminiscent of a cobra, not the true deal.--Blockhaj (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
actually, I think the f-22’s cobra is a Cobra hover. If you read the wiki page for cobra ,there is a variation called cobra hover which fits the description for the f-22 cobra you said:
“The cobra hover is an extension of the original maneuver in which an aircraft initiates the cobra but remains in the "cobra state" for a longer period of time by the use of thrust control, thus achieving the "hover" part of the maneuver. After which the aircraft can complete the maneuver in various ways depending on its energy.” 2.50.18.233 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that the F-22 cannot enter the "cobra state" according to current information. It uses thrust control to stall out. Its what can be called a "vertical stall hover".--Blockhaj (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can enter a “cobra state”. The problem is that in the demos, the raptor entered in too low speed that’s why it’s slow to pitch up. Here’s a instagram post by the f-22 demo pilot showing it can enter the state:https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cg8yKgCDeMx/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First source which actually somewhat shows a cobra. But the movement still feels off and we would need a descpription of how the pilot performs it. For me it seems he is using thrust vectoring and thrust control. Cool find either way.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it further, the aircraft really just climbs and never really stalls its wings like in a Cobra. He also doesnt use the elevator torque to return to level fligt, instead rolling over.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBIiDQ8Ylf4 At 1:47 cobra. Barely or no vertical movement, pitches more than 90degrees. That’s a cobra! Who said that all cobras had to look like Russian ones? Russian cobras don’t look like how the draken performed it either. Mig-29 can’t even perform a cobra, the sources for it are just showing a rapid pitch up and down. Not even past 70 degrees pitch. The raptor is doing it in a more controlled way Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The video is really low quality and has no proper reference point. Also, the movement yet again shows a forced stall maneuver where the aircraft hovers on its tail. The whole point behind the Cobra is that its a natural reaction of the airframe when pulling high alfa. Take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lENodGzJ2gM&t=55s It shows the Cobra from several angles and has sideby aircraft for reference. If you need an american example, look up the Rockwell-MBB X-31, that thing performs Cobra-esc stalls like there is no tomorrow. As for the MiG-29, it is definitely less Cobra capable than the Su-27 derivatives, but it still has the instability needed to perform it. See this video for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXy7RxCplY&t=145s If we simply go by the logic that any controlled vertical pitchup stall counts as a Cobra then effectively any maneuverable aircraft can perform it. Here is a propeller plane effectively going the same maneuver as the F-22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO4ag_lJsO4 Pull up, engine power down to not climb, full throttle to regain energy once stalled and then level the aircraft down in the poststall, yada yada yada.--Blockhaj (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is a cobra impossible for the f-22 when the raptor can perform a kulbit? The Kulbit is a more demanding maneuver so if it can perform a kulbit, it should be able to perform a cobra. At 1:41, in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU, the raptor performs a kulbit. It is a video from 2007 so it is low res and frame rate but enough to see that the raptor performed a kulbit similar to how a mig-29OVT performed a double kulbit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R32O8z0AQeY Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please don’t object the kulbit by saying it’s using thrust vectoring, kulbit is a maneuver using thrust vectoring. Su-37 first performed it, and there is a reason a su-27 can’t Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A better resolution video of the raptor kulbit(at 1:22): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZGEMJxR_FM Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections: at 1:12 not 1:22 Gamerbirb0928 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cobra doesn't come from aerodynamic instability blockhaj, you are highly mistaken. f-16 normaly cant perform a cobra, but f-16 vista can. there is no such thing as a natural cobra. 217.165.86.93 (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vista straight up flips its elevator to the point were it no longer bears any lift, thus the aircraft becomes an unstable flying dorito, stalls upwards (sort of like a cobra), from which the elevator is centered, causing torque which pulls the nose down. Since there is essentially no proper video footage showing it doing a cobra, just a low resolution alpha indicator filmed in the cockpit hud, we can't even prove that the Vista does a cobra, since the altitude indicator isnt shown and would probably go bananaz during the maneuver.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s literally footage of it pulling a proper cobra. You are just refusing the fact that other planes can do a cobra. Sukhois with their fake thrust vectoring aren’t even capable as vista 83.110.18.196 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no provided footage of the vista doing a proper cobra. Vista-footage of high alpha maneuvers show the maneuvers done at very low speed (its outfitted with wingtip smokegenerators so u can see this), with the movement done in a slow controlled nature. The stall doesnt appear until the aircraft have peaked. A cobra is done at speeds of 600-800 kph ish and the stall appears more or less when the aircraft hits 45-60 degrees of alpha in the maneuver, which is due to the initial alpha movement being done at such a fast rate that the aircraft never really changes angle of travel, so the incoming air hits the wing underneath and cant travel over it, causing it to stall. Even then, its hard to film a cobra, because a lot of aircraft can do really fast pullups, except that they climb instead of stalling a cobra. Without the proper background there is no good way to tell the difference between a fast pullup and a cobra. Because of this, purpose-made cobra demonstration footage always includes a wingman for reference. See the following two examples (timestamped):
--Blockhaj (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is there a list for this?

[edit]

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)[reply]

There is a list in the article.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra on MiG-21 - any actual proof?

[edit]

The whole "Cobra in Syria/Egypt/Jordan/Pakistan" part is based on a single article by Tom Cooper. According to that article, from 1967 to 1972 the maneuver became widely known across Middle East - to the point where "it soon became a standard defensive manoeuvre (sic) for MiG-21" - and was used in actual combat. So, of course, there should be footage from Israeli gun cameras, training manuals describing it, official reports from Soviet advisors the region was overflowed with, Soviets filming attempts to do it themselves etc. None of those were presented by the author, and I have a feeling it was all written from words of Mohammad Mansour himself.

Considering rather grim air-to-air record for Arabs in 1973 war, I'd call the claim dubious at best until some real life proofs (not War Thunder) are provided. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Blockhaj (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why undoing the article edit in this case? Reference to this topic is now lost in the article body; numerous references to the same "literary source" are again shown as something viable. If it's "fair enough", please make it visible enough again. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U posted tons of template:Dubious in places where they should not be, such as in a section heading, disrupting the page. That template is intended for minor claims, not entire sections. I replaced them with template:disputed section. Blockhaj (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed the disputed markings from four different places and only replaced one of them - without a reference to the actual dispute. I can agree with replacing section markings with "disputed section", but not the reversions in the airplane list. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one template will have to act for the entire syrian claim on the article. It is excessive to flag literally every bit related to it. Blockhaj (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MiG-21 is listed as a cobra-capable airplane in the dedicated table, based on a low quality source, good two screens away from the Syrian chapter. Why on earth should it not be linked to a discussion related to that only source being low quality? Soaring Crocodile (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then add a inline citation and verifiability dispute template to the reference, such as template:Better source needed, template:Scientific citation needed or template:Unreliable fringe source etc. Blockhaj (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious is one of the dispute templates. It converts into "The material near this tag is possibly inaccurate or nonfactual" message, which is exactly what I want to say. And it allows connected talk topics - something none of the templates you listed can do. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting related document can be found here [2]. It's an overview of MiG-21F examination by USAF Foreign Technology Division in late 1960's (Have Doughnut). A few things that caught my attention:
- p.9 - MiG-21 had extremely good stall recovery - it was enough to release controls right after stall signs appeared. Nothing like a departure into higher AoA essential for Draken's kort parad.
- p.14 - the engine had a tendency for a dangerous level of vibrations if an afterburner was engaged at low airflow speeds - the required action by Cooper.
- p.14 - MiG-21 had very good nose authority at low speeds, but it's F-15/F-18 level of critical AoA, and is not a post-stall mode.
- MiG-21F was extensively tested by some of the best US pilots. After it was extensively tested by Israeli. If those haven't found it can do something - no Arab pilot of that time would be able to. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found the origin of the whole claim - Giora Epstein's account of a fight on 20 October 1973. The interview from Dogfights, S02E06, can be found here https://www.facebook.com/HISTORY/videos/the-most-thrilling-dogfight-of-the-jet-age-dogfights/1135975144279921/ "Cobra part" starts 0:38 and is actually a split-S without enough altitude that ends up with leveling at high AoA. The simulation is of a very questionable quality - for example, Nesher constantly switches between having 0, 1 and 2 missiles, contradicting the narration that very moment.
Some low-credibility claims about it being a deliberate maneuver go as far as 2009 https://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/2009/10/egyptian-crazy-pilot.html and parts of the Epstein's story are debated - like Ahmed al-Mansouri claiming he was the EAF pilot that day and he wasn't shot down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5p-o4IIHY (video in Arabic, can't verify the actual content).
IMO the article should be updated to reflect the nature of those claims - while there are multiple accounts on something happening, those are only oral accounts of the same event that contradict each other to a degree, and there's still no evidence of a "standard maneuver" of either EAF or SyAF, and no actual footage from any air force despite MiG-21 being one of the most-produced planes in history. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny little detail - Tom Cooper's own Arab MiG-19 And MiG-21 Units In Combat from 2004 doesn't mention any significant action for EAF on 20 October 1973. Page 45 literally has only two sentences for the whole day. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say then, remove the Syrian claim as of now and rewrite the segment in the sandbox, then return for review. Blockhaj (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soaring_Crocodile/sandbox will replace the parts Syria and Pakistan/Egypt. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cobra_maneuver&oldid=1259398511"