"Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

"They don't know they could roll the aircraft during energy recovery which does not affect acceleration that much..."

Give 'em your contact info. I'm sure they would be charmed by your insights.

In the US services (particularly the USAF), air show routines are conceived, reviewed, tested, reviewed again and approved in a very detailed process through multiple levels of command. Pilot selection is similarly rigorous consistent with the demands of the routine. Ultimately, the degree of difficulty/risk assumed in the routine will boil down to what effort (time/cost/risk) will it take for what benefit versus other priorities. Bleeding edge performance is not what one will see in the public domain due to the proximity of the viewing public -- not for classification but rather for safety.

There isn't much more to be explored aerodynamically that might be -- safely -- demonstrated in a public display.

"That being said if the legacy hornet can fly like the SH why haven't we been able to witness it at a show?"

Because the juice is not worth the squeeze. Apart from interweb warriors and people who are trying to sell/buy aircraft, few really care about something that a jet does at an airshow.

If that is true than why do the SH, F-22/35 routines involve post stall maneuvering, airshow crowds want to see what these AC are capable of, we can't see stealth, SA, but we can see maneuvering. The F-18 has had this capability long before this new generation of aircraft, why hide it?

Here is a superb CF-18 demo, 1986 at Abbotsford, Maj. Bob Wade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgO6rhyA2FA




The lighter early lot "A" model Hornets (and in this case a "CF") were obviously no slouch-

"They don't know they could roll the aircraft during energy recovery which does not affect acceleration that much..."

Give 'em your contact info. I'm sure they would be charmed by your insights.

Well I mean unloaded roll. I know loaded roll is an major energy eater but unloaded roll is not.

"They don't know they could roll the aircraft during energy recovery which does not affect acceleration that much..."

Give 'em your contact info. I'm sure they would be charmed by your insights.

Well I mean unloaded roll. I know loaded roll is an major energy eater but unloaded roll is not.

What got my attention was the "They don't know..." part. I can gurantee you that they DO know those kind of things.

"That being said if the legacy hornet can fly like the SH why haven't we been able to witness it at a show?"

Because the juice is not worth the squeeze. Apart from interweb warriors and people who are trying to sell/buy aircraft, few really care about something that a jet does at an airshow.

If that is true than why do the SH, F-22/35 routines involve post stall maneuvering, airshow crowds want to see what these AC are capable of, we can't see stealth, SA, but we can see maneuvering. The F-18 has had this capability long before this new generation of aircraft, why hide it?

Once again, the risk was judged not worth the reward. If you bothered to read the doc by Dunaway et al linked by a poster above re: the effort to 'uninhibit' (my word) SH hi-aoa handling, you might have noticed that Hornet didnt get similar handling until the SH work had been achieved. Thus, while capable of such maneuvers, until that time Hornet was either very near, or in oocf in order to do so. That changes the 'risk' part of the equation for air show decision-makers because an air show puts the jet in close proximity to the ground, where there are people and things that people own/value, and where the probability and consequence of getting something even a little bit wrong (for a host of reasons) is very high. In training, these kinds of maneuvers generally happen well above 10K' and are performed for the purpose of preparation for combat.

Some elements of the early SH demos were far more aggressive but were subsequently altered for similar risk/reward judgements. If a SH, Raptor of F-35 are doing something in an air show, it has been deemed low risk for departure/oocf.

Well that reminds me of the "vertical pirouette" thing which was canceled in 2011. SH used to do that maneuver a lot before 2011 and that maneuver was very fun to watch (I think that is the navy equivalent of Herbst or J-turn). however one SH crashed when performing that maneuver and that maneuver was removed from then on.

A SH demo at Andrews AFB in the early 2000s featured a takeoff, low transition, vertical pull to a half cuban eight, and a sudden pull-up coming down the back side of the HC8 to what looked to be a 'cobra'-like maneuver; my first thought was that the pilot departed controlled flight and I was about to be one of a couple hundred thousand witnesses to a mishap; didnt turn out that way. Not long thereafter, during the now-standard hi-alpha pass, the jet started doing a series of velocity vector rolls -- below roughly 2000' AGL; it was breathtaking. Havent seen anything near that 'edgy' since.

I think it was in hushkit or foxtrot alpha, the Navy pilot explaining that the legacy Hornet being smaller and lighter is a bit more nimble than the super hornet, with greater sustained rate of turns

I agree with this and the big motor legacy Hornet (like the Swiss one in the video) also has better T/W ratio especially when lightly loaded. I think big motor legacy Hornet (C/D) is very underrated fighter aircraft that actually had and still has (for 4th gen fighter) very good all-around performance with the latest software and updates.

Thanks Hornetfinn, makes me wonder how the YF-17 or F-18L might have handled, had the FCS been available at the time since they were several thousands of pounds lighter without the carrier requirement.

With handling like that, short of TV, the Hornet would be hard to outclass WVR. It also explains why the Western fighters have not pursued TV and the Russians use it as there only selling point. Does the F-16 have similar characteristics that we haven't seen?

When pulled abruptly F-16 may exceed FCS limits and fly in a ballistic way. similar to Sukhoi stunts. The difference is that F-16 has higher nose pointing rate (almost 120 deg /sec) in this situation, due to smaller inertia of rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9YC-gaNYo
Not useful because it is out of control.

An old article about how FCS fix boosted its agility:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-188096/

An interesting remark at the very end of the article. It makes an analogy between SH and X-31's "helicopter gun attack maneuver"

This video shows how pedal turn works against conventional turn.
I think the actual usage is to minimize enemy's horizontal maneuvering options and force it to go vertical.

Do anyone have the file where this cut came from

I want some more ammunition to shut down a troll

L

If that is true than why do the SH, F-22/35 routines involve post stall maneuvering, airshow crowds want to see what these AC are capable of, we can't see stealth, SA, but we can see maneuvering. The F-18 has had this capability long before this new generation of aircraft, why hide it?

IMO the significance e post-stall maneuvers is probably lost on 99.99% of attendees, maybe even more. As long as the jets fly , maneuver and make noise they're happy.

Do anyone have the file where this cut came from

J-turn F-35 pedal turn.jpg

I want some more ammunition to shut down a troll

IIRC that come from the F-35 CLAWS test. You know, the one where "journalists" ignored the purpose of the test and instead tried to frame it as a Combat BFM test.

I found it quoted on Elements of Power's site.:
https://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/20 ... -2015.html

It seems that the direct quote was from a December 2014 doc that described the upcoming CLAWESs test. It may aslo be from this AIAA doc:
F-35A High Angle of Attack Testing
Steven Baer, Lockheed Martin Corporation
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference Atlanta, GA
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2014-2057


Here is the Claws Test
https://aviationweek.com/site-files/avi ... euvers.pdf