Most Maneuverable Aircraft

I know what you thinking, todays aerial battles will take place miles away, but sometimes a visual confirmation is required, and there is a chance that a dogfight can happen. What are the most maneuverable aircraft today and it's enemy contemporaries.

The X-31 is one of the top ten most maneuverable aircraft as well as the F-18 HARV and F-16 MATV. These aircraft are only experimental, and have use of some old tech.

Some pics of the X-31:
X-31 landing
X-31, F-18 HARV and F-16 MATV
X-31 and chase F-18
X-31 rolling
X-31 in high alpha climb

The F-15 ACTIVE is another one.

In terms of actual operational fighters, I would have to give the nod to the Su-27 family of aircraft. The Raptor is also supposed to be very manuverable as well

Both the SU-30MKI and the Mig-29OTV should be very high on the list.

Is the F-22 maneuverable?

MiG-35 (29OVT) or really any of the eurocanards (typhoon , rafaele or gryphon) , although the raptor can be thrown around quite well

The most maneuverable combat-oriented aircraft would have to be the MiG-35, followed closely by the Su-47. Raptor's close to the top as well.

But if you're looking for the most maneuverable aircraft, you're looking in entirely the wrong direction. Check some videos of Patty Wagstaff and other Extra 300 pilots.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
The most maneuverable combat-oriented aircraft would have to be the MiG-35, followed closely by the Su-47. Raptor's close to the top as well.

But if you're looking for the most maneuverable aircraft, you're looking in entirely the wrong direction. Check some videos of Patty Wagstaff and other Extra 300 pilots.

The OVT is more manuverable, because of the 3D TVC.

In a combat situation the F-22 Raptor would likely be the most maneuverable in service aircraft, (best Forrest Gump voice) and that's all I have to say about that...

[edit on 19-7-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In a combat situation the F-22 Raptor would likely be the most maneuverable in service aircraft, (best Forrest Gump voice) and that's all I have to say about that...

[edit on 19-7-2007 by WestPoint23]

I respectfully disagree.

And thats all I have to say about that...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In a combat situation the F-22 Raptor would likely be the most maneuverable in service aircraft, (best Forrest Gump voice) and that's all I have to say about that...

[edit on 19-7-2007 by WestPoint23]

Yeah - I'd have to agree.


I don't think the OVT or MKI use their TVC to compensate for movement of the aero-centre in supersonic flight like the F-22 does (thus giving the F-22 its manouvering advantage) - but I am open to correction on that - I'm far from 100% sure on it.

Thus, for viable front line fighters (and not demonstrators), the F-22 has the best supersonic manouvering.

While its subsonic agility may not be quite up there with others, like the F-16/EF/Rafale/Gripen/-29 (in roll) or with the EF/OVT in pitch - its T/W ratio is such that it can sustain a turn as good as (and in most cases better than) the rest keeping its energy levels higher.


What it surrenders to the EF/OVT in dynamic subsonic manouvering is more than compensated for in sustained subsonics and dynamic supersonics IMO.

You might want to look at the su29 designed to withstand 22g's also the extra300 can do crazy turns. Why do people allways turn to milltary aircraft, Sorry if I offend.

www.sukhoi.org...

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I don't think the OVT or MKI use their TVC to compensate for movement of the aero-centre in supersonic flight like the F-22 does (thus giving the F-22 its manouvering advantage) - but I am open to correction on that - I'm far from 100% sure on it.

I would be happy to answer your open-to-correction assertion with an open-to-correction assertion of my own! In supersonic (and basically just high-speed maneuvers in general) it's not a question of how far your control surfaces can go. In fact, for the very most part of flight with a combat aircraft, the control surfaces will never be completely extended up, down, left, or right. This is only at very low speeds where the more surface area showing you have the faster you maneuver. At high speeds if you were to have elevators COMPLETELY up or down they would be ripped off, especially supersonic. I'm sure I don't need to explain the inconveniences that this puts upon the flight of an aircraft. So, to make sure all is well, the flight computer corrects the amount of control surface movement to avoid the whole scenario and keep the pilot alive.

While its subsonic agility may not be quite up there with others, like the F-16/EF/Rafale/Gripen/-29 (in roll) or with the EF/OVT in pitch - its T/W ratio is such that it can sustain a turn as good as (and in most cases better than) the rest keeping its energy levels higher.

That it does. Here are some T/W Ratios of the aircraft in question, all assuming full afterburner and at loaded weight.

F-22 Raptor : 1.26
F-35 Lightening II : 0.97
EF-2000 Typhoon : 1.18
Dassault Rafale : 0.83
JAS 39 Gripen : 0.94
MiG-29 Fulcrum : 0.99 (Couldn't find proper stats on the Fulcrum F)
MiG-25 Foxbat : 1.02
Su-35 BM Super Flanker : 1.17
Su-47 Berkut-Firkin : 1.16

Hope this shows how the current stocks are related. F-22's is definitely at the top, but other offerings aren't far off the mark.

What it surrenders to the EF/OVT in dynamic subsonic manouvering is more than compensated for in sustained subsonics and dynamic supersonics IMO.

Not entirely sure how much good a supersonic maneuver will do you though

The OVT is more manuverable, because of the 3D TVC.

Actually the PFU modifications on the AL-37s used to power the SU-47 were capable of both combining yaw and pitch thrust vectoring for a nice 360 degree effect. MiG 35 is a fair bit lighter, which is why I give it the marks.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by Darkpr0]

[edit on 7/19/2007 by Darkpr0]

Originally posted by Darkpr0
I would be happy to answer your open-to-correction assertion with an open-to-correction assertion of my own! In supersonic (and basically just high-speed maneuvers in general) it's not a question of how far your control surfaces can go. In fact, for the very most part of flight with a combat aircraft, the control surfaces will never be completely extended up, down, left, or right. This is only at very low speeds where the more surface area showing you have the faster you maneuver. At high speeds if you were to have elevators COMPLETELY up or down they would be ripped off, especially supersonic. I'm sure I don't need to explain the inconveniences that this puts upon the flight of an aircraft. So, to make sure all is well, the flight computer corrects the amount of control surface movement to avoid the whole scenario and keep the pilot alive.

Ahh, but on other aircraft (F-15, F-16, Su-27 etc) the elevators are already deflected to a degree to trim it - which obviously places [sometimes significant] loads on them, before any manouvering takes place.

The F-22 uses its TVC to trim the aircraft, allowing full loading/deflection (whatever is the limiting factor) of the elevators for manouvering.

From what I have heard, the problem with the super maneuverable Russian aircraft is the engines...ooh wow, they can do tons of useless flips at zero airspeed, that wont really help it. The F-22 on the other hand has the engine power to pull out of its cobras and kulbits and other maneuvers without stalling, something that cant be said for the Su-37 and MiG-35, but perhaps for the Su-47.

And let me just point out how useless super maneuverability is in a 3-400 knot dogfight, where both aircraft are limited to 9.5G turns no matter how agile the aircraft is at low speed...

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
From what I have heard, the problem with the super maneuverable Russian aircraft is the engines...ooh wow, they can do tons of useless flips at zero airspeed, that wont really help it. The F-22 on the other hand has the engine power to pull out of its cobras and kulbits and other maneuvers without stalling, something that cant be said for the Su-37 and MiG-35, but perhaps for the Su-47.

And let me just point out how useless super maneuverability is in a 3-400 knot dogfight, where both aircraft are limited to 9.5G turns no matter how agile the aircraft is at low speed...

Wow, now heres a master in FUD!

I don't know where you get your information, but its wrong - the demonstrations I have seen by the MiG-35, MiG-29OTV, Su-27 and Su-30 have all been breathtaking at both low speeds and high speeds with no indication of engine stalling or even the merest hint of engine trouble, despite the amazing maneuvering the aircraft were doing at the time.

I hear about a lot of stunning airshow demonstrations by Sukhoi and MiG aircraft each year, but I don't hear about them falling out of the sky left right and center, which is what would be happening if they were underpowered or had engines susceptible to stalling.

Your preconceptions about Russian technology is old and vastly outdated, they have some damn fine military engine manufacturers. Besides, India would hardly have signed a multi billion dollar contract with Sukhoi for an airframe that had such a glaring defect that you claim - indeed India went with the enhanced option pack with 360 degree thrust vectoring.

And high maneuverability counts for a lot even in a high speed dogfights - the person that gets their nose in the right direction first, essentially wins, and high maneuverability accomplishes that.

And...,
you will notice that most exciting aerobatics performed by Russian pilots in advertising MiGs and Su include induced stalling - dogfight dealing with a "stalling" oponent would excede capabilities of existing fighters.

Originally posted by legrig
And...,
you will notice that most exciting aerobatics performed by Russian pilots in advertising MiGs and Su include induced stalling - dogfight dealing with a "stalling" oponent would excede capabilities of existing fighters.

Yes, the maneuvers involved in airshow demonstrations are well within the limitations of the airframe.

I haven't seen it mentioned (or missed it), but I've personally watched the wargames in Cold Lake Alberta and there were plenty of exercises that pitted various aircraft against each other.

I've never seen anything with the manuverability of the Harrier in that air. Those pilots do things (thanks to the VTOL abilities) that other pilots could only dream of doing.

Sure it's slower then muh of the competition, but when it can stop dead, lift or drop vertically, and even hover in the clouds...it's amazing.

First of all - dont tell me what my opinions are, or put words in my mouth, you obviously didnt read my post or you wouldnt fabricate my opinions...as a matter of fact, I am a huge fan of Russian engineering and I think that Russian aeronautics are some of the best on the planet. Not only did I not say what you claim I did, I dont think it either.

You dont have to hear about them falling out of the sky, just go to youtube, you will see that when the Russian aircraft pull their maneuvers they do it at almost zero airspeed, while on the other hand the F-22 can do it at much higher speed.

I'm not sure if you know this, but pointing your nose in different directions involves turning the aircraft, and at 350 Knots, neither aircraft will be able to turn at more than 9.5G. And if you think that Russian aircraft can just stay at the same airspeed and direction while pointing its nose everywhere you are mistaken, the minute the AOA rises, the Gs do as well, thats just how wind resistance works.

Originally posted by Id123
You might want to look at the su29 designed to withstand 22g's also the extra300 can do crazy turns. Why do people allways turn to milltary aircraft, Sorry if I offend.

www.sukhoi.org...

It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference if you're flying a plane capable of pulling 22Gs, or 10Gs, because the PILOT is the weak link. No human in existence can come anywhere NEAR pulling 22Gs. Most pilots have a really hard time handling 8-9Gs, and that's with G suits, and other assistance in the plane.