Fullsize F-18C doing Cobra ?
 

@ 9:00 look's to me like a COBRA MANEUVER ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbR4BCLmUA8

I thik the real cobra ends we a final pull after leveling from th negative g manouver. On this video the Hornet quickly tries to recover by banking left after the negative push.

I saw that too.. but it was a good effort lol.

Word is there is a new Horny coming out. Stealthier and deadlier.

I'm not sure what a Cobra is supposed to look like exactly, or if there is an official definition...

Can't tell exactly because of the editing but it could be the same program that I've seen at some shows. I really like the look of the sharp high AoA corners and what people have called loaded rolls (like corkscrew with high AoA, and possibly flares going off at the same time).

F-22 ? just kidding lol

"I'm not sure what a Cobra is supposed to look like exactly, or if there is an official definition"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsyMUAfh6fg

May be a naive question, but why would finland buy f-18's that have folding wings and arrestor hook? Seems like they wouldn't have checked that box on the option sheet. Seems like added weight and maintenance that they won't use. I googled looking to see if they have carriers, looks like they don't. Why would a country buy a plane designed for carrier use in the first place when they don't have a carrier?

Here is a list of carriers by nation. Interesting that we have to have 5 times more than second place and 10 times more than every other.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=1914780

Yep.
... but if you do a maneuver that is a bit like a Cobra - where is the line between Cobra and "not-a-Cobra?

Folding wings are handy for storage. A hook and sturdy landing gear are handy for using short and rough runways, such as straight pieces of road. Finland still stays prepared to use roads for air bases, as there is no realistic way to keep a "major enemy" from breaking the peace time air bases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtFc0Z44m8

They don't use the hook routinely but practice its use at land bases.

I could always ask if you want, got his email here as we been chatting reference photo's i got of him from this years display

Simple: it costs more. The baseline F-18 was designed for NAVY, therefore floding wings and arresting hook were requirements. Changing these requirements or changing the baseline design costs a lot o money and would have been billed directly to the customer. So, the customer has to ask the question can I live with folding wings and an arresting hook. Some manufacturers dont even provide an option of redesign/reconfiguring baseline design.

Spain, Switzerland, Canada, USA all share the same configuration. On a side note, eliminating the folding wings, removing the tail hook, adding a smaller landing gear would yield a much lighter airframe with improved performance. Not sure the NAVY would like that for an export version Horny.

David

WOW, I don't ever recall a take off with the Speed Brake out. That was a first for me.

I've wondered about that one too. On purpose, selected by computer, or Pilot Error? I know that Hornets use the rudders for increased elevator authority. Looks like it didn't slow it down much.

I only had one flight in the Hornet, and I don't remember the interlocks, but in the Tomcat the speedbrakes automatically retracted at the military power stop on either throttle. I would assume the F-18 is the same, so I don't understand how he could (and why would he?) take off with speed brake extended like that. It did retract as soon as he went weight off wheels. Strange.
Regards,
Gus

the 18 has to use the rudders because it does not have enough elavator to rotate. the fix was to feed a bunch of rudder in and then they can rotate for take off. heck, the a 6 had to use skids under the front tires for land take off. the tires would blow if not for the skid plantes. it was never designed for land use. the f 14 could do a true cobra. it is a simple full up manuver to the point that the aircraft just pancakes into the air at a 90 degree angle of attack.

i should say that this was told to me by my brother-in-law, Bill Stiles who was chife engineer for stablity and controll for the f-14. he was the man who designed the f-14 and worked on it form the first piece of paper right to the day it was retired. Bill told me that he had a new "baby" tom cat designed that would totally out preform the 18 but the navy wanted the far inferior 18. like he said,,some one in the navy was bought out big time. the 18 is like going back to prop power whaen comparwd to the f-14.

i watched it two times and saw no cbra ,,,nothing even close.

They built an F18 without all that mess. It was the YF-17.http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=1914897


(....itty bitty girly landing gear)

Yeap. Northrop was in deep on the lightweight fighter competition. They had a great concept, which was later sold to McDonnell Douglas.

Most fighters have tailhooks. The F-15 and F-16 do too even though they are land based, non carrier aircraft.

Beave

Maybe they'll fix the pylons on this one???

The hook can be used in case the brakes fail, they can hook a cable across the runway and use the hook to catch it. There is a great video of the hornet during trials where they test it for rough carrier landings, the fa-18 catches the hook while still above the runway and it pulls the aircraft to the ground, amazing it doesn't rip the whole tail end off. Its a back up so to speak.

The only reason to do the airbrake take-off on purpose, that I can think of, is that it would also add a pitch-up moment like the in-rudder.

But the F-17 never went into production. Neither did F-18L.

If SAAB Gripen had already been in service in Sweden, at the time when Finland was looking to replace the Draken and MiG-21, I think there was a good chance of it being selected instead of F-18. They wanted a fighter that didn't have too many teething problems remaining, though. The Gripen was certainly designed with road bases in mind.