Talk:Supermaneuverability

Maneuvering thrusters section

The section refers to aircraft that use thrust vectoring to hover or take off vertically. These aircraft are by no means "super-maneuverable" and the section can probably be omitted.Nem1yan (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thrust Vectoring section could be expanded

The area on thrust vectoring seems a bit 'boring' in a sense. It doesn't explain the distinctions between different types of thrust vectoring, from VTOL thrust vectoring to thrust vectoring control, or from single engine to dual engine, or from 2d to 3d.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just merge this article into Thrust vectoring and the problem is solved. Hcobb (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging the article would imply that an aircraft must have thrust vectoring in order to be supermaneuverable. Honestly the term is rather relative either way you look at it. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Examples of non-vectoring SMs? How about the F-35 Screeching Baby Seal, that can fly around at 50 degree angle of attack? Hcobb (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Eurodeltas and Superhornets for example. Seeing superhornets at airshows honestly makes you wonder what is so special about the F-22. The USAF thunderbirds perform high alpha maneuvers constantly in F-16's as well. Thrust vectoring is good, but it isnt everything. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit too much American Centric

3/5 Photos showcase American planes, there's a picture with a caption of the F-22, stating that it's the first U.S. plane that's supermaneuverable, but has no picture of a Su-27, which was the first Supermaneuverable plane. It's very trivial, but I don't like small things like that >.>

Another thing is that in the articles itself, most of the time it uses examples involving the F-16, which is more or less an aesthetic thing, but I would like to see more examples involving Russian crafts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory in Germany (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

————————————

The article now clearly states that the first supermaneuverable aircraft was an F-15 varient, which flew much earlier than the SU-27. The SU-27 and MiG-29 were the first supermaneuverable aircraft to enter serial production and service (as far as I know), but not the first ever. However, VERY much agreed on the American-centrism (and I am an American). This line:

This capability was first researched in the United States, and eventually resulted in the development of the McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD as a proof of concept aircraft, the result of research begun in 1975 at Langley Research Center, a full 8 years before the Soviet Mikoyan MiG-29 claimed this as a new, revolutionary capability.

This statement suggests that the author has an axe to grind with those who put the SU-27 forth as the first supermaneuverable aircraft. This is not an appropriate sentiment for a neutral encyclopedia entry. A more fair discussion would mention that the Soviet aircraft were the first supermaneuverable aircraft in service. Also, it would be sufficient to identify the F-15 STOL/MTD as belonging to the United States, there is no need for the patriotic bluster.97.98.13.107 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite

Read through some sections and found grammar and spelling mistakes, issues with tone, style and POV, and some factual errors. I'll probably make several edits next week and would appreciate help from other users. -Nem1yan (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason my statement about the Su-27 being able to perform the Cobra needs to be cited? Especially considering that the previous statement that it was the first to perform the maneuver was not? Also, even though the Draken was capable of performing the cobra maneuver I was not sure about its' inclusion in the article because I dont have information on its' turning radii and maximum sustainable alpha. If I swap images and provide a link of the Draken performing a cobra it would imply that the Draken was a supermaneuverable fighter, which it isnt. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

without altitude loss below stall speed

If that is the minimum requirement then delete the Russian designs and add the F-35B. The Russians can get away from wing lift, and remain controllable, but falling. It's the F-22 that can climb on thrust alone in a combat configuration. Hcobb (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

F-15 STOL/MTD and F-15 ACTIVE

It may be confusing to talk about the F-15 STOL/MTD in the text and the F-15 AGILE in the picture caption. These two different programs used the same physical aircraft, and the latter was essentially a follow-on to the former. Indeed, the pages for both programs are combined on Wikipedia . It might be less confusing to either introduce the subject by first calling the aircraft the "F-15 STOL/MTD (later part of the F-15 ACTIVE program)" or change the caption to read "the design is an F-15 Eagle with vectored thrust and canards, and was modified from the original F-15 STOL/MTD."97.98.13.107 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

References

VIFFing

There is a references made to the Harrier aircraft and its ability to use vectoring in forward flight (VIFF) to outmaneuver opponents, in particular the Argentinians during the Falklands War. Please remove it from the article. This is an often stated 'super capability' that was allegedly the secret weapon up the Harrier's sleeve. But it was never used in combat. Airshows? Yes, but never in combat. Perhaps another article can can go into detail on the merits (or disadvantages) of the harrier. Its success record during the Falklands War has been widely documented, and has been largely attributed to the American donation of the Sidewinder AIM-9L missile above all else. There are countless others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.58.105 (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supermaneuverability. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820164925/http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_16.html to http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_16.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Assessment section up for deletion / rewrite

The assessment section seems to reference some PHD thesis with a link to some personal webpage. Without going into details of the new measure suggested by Kutschera, the section as a whole might not contribute that much to the informative content of the page. I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages, so you tell me what's the preferred course of action in these scenarios - deleting or rewriting the section? Any thoughts?

Molleresa (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

delete 69.160.107.242 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)