gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
I guess it is possible but only upon the individual pilot. Boyd was exceptional, just read carefully the things he must do with his hands and feet in the cockpit to execute that dangerous maneuver. On the other hand, think about the fact that with modern avionics, we are making the aircraft do many things that previous generations of pilots must do in order to have stable flight.Thanks a lot for the explaination however is this maneuver possible for a high speed chase involvings F-15s and Migs like in the movie? Also if i remember correctly in the movie, Tom Cruise uses a missile to take down his opponent after this move.
Now take a look at this...
Flying the F/A-18F Super Hornet
What Boyd and Pugachev did was to create as extreme a drag coefficient factor as possible to slow the aircraft down as soon as possible. Both did it by presenting the aircraft's underside to the airstream. Both were in extremely high AoA. Both were also extremely vulnerable. Pugachev in his modern Su did the maneuver no doubt more refined than Boyd but understand that Boyd did it with a far less sophisticated aircraft.2.2 The Virtual Speedbrake
The next handling demonstration involved involved the speedbrake and some high alpha low speed handling, an area in which many fighters experience problems in maintaining direction and avoiding a departure into uncontrolled flight.
The first demonstration involved the virtual speedbrake effectiveness and handling in this configuration. The F/A-18A-D, like the F-15 series, employs an upper fuselage hydraulically deployed speedbrake. The Super Hornet has no such device, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.
Dave demonstrated the speedbrake function, and I was asked to observe over the shoulder and in the mirrors the raised ailerons, lowered trailing flaps, raised spoilers and splayed out rudders. Deceleration is smooth and there is no observable pitch change.
At Mach 0.63 Dave invited me to fly another 360 aileron roll, to observe that the aircraft retains considerable control authority despite the fact that the rudders are splayed out, and the ailerons, spoilers and flaps are generating balanced opposing pitching moments. I applied roughly 1/2 stick input and the aircraft very cleanly rolled through 360 degrees at about 90 degrees/sec roll rate. I commented on the lower roll rate and Dave observed that we were significantly slower, he then proceeded to demonstrate the roll again with a full stick input, producing around 180 degrees/sec with a slight overshoot on recovery. The aircraft feels very stable throughout the manoeuvre and there is no observable change in control forces or control input response by the FCS.
What the Super Hornet can do is to eliminate the extreme AoA and associated vulnerability by using surface deflections to their maximum. Try to imagine that the rear stabs are deflected to initiate a maximum right roll but the wings' surfaces are deflected to initiate a maximum left roll, canceling out the rear stabs. At the same time both rudders are split. The aircraft just presented to the airstream a high drag coefficient, may be not as high as the underside, but high enough to slow it down without the pilot losing forward sight or possibly entering uncontrolled flight. The intention is the same as with Boyd and Pugachev but with different and safer methods. Not only that, if the pilot want to have a turn as well as that rapid slow down, the aircraft's avionics can accommodate his desire as well. Neither Boyd nor Pugachev can command such opposite surface deflections on their own. If this is used in a real guns-only fight, the opposing pilot would overshoot and the F-18 pilot would still be in full control of his aircraft in a superior position.