NGC: Top Gun Maverick

[geodoc]

Top Gun came out in 1986. Meaning that in the sequel, Mav's been retired from the Navy for 15 years and is now flying 767's full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong for Fedex.




.

[Cam3512]

Top Gun came out in 1986. Meaning that in the sequel, Mav's been retired from the Navy for 15 years and is now flying 767's full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong for Fedex.

Exactly.  Gotta love Hollywood.  Mark Harmon plays an NCIS agent on TV.  He's 67 years old, and mandatory retirement is 57.  He should be a mall security guard with Paul Blart.

[Huzo]

Try this then..
Given that
 Force = mass x acceleration
Then dividing both sides by mass gives
Force/mass =acceleration
Or
a= F/m
So to achieve a negative figure for a (acc’n)
You’d need a negative figure for F or m
At no stage during the launch is the mass or the acceleration less than zero...
So the force is always in the positive holding little Tommy’s head back.
How’s that work for y’all ?
Failing that, read the second half of post #15 and try that. You’ll see that a reduction in thrust won’t cause the mass to move forward within the system, you need a deceleration (or a reduction in velocity), as long as there is any thrust (and there is at all times), the airspeed will not be decreasing, or at least you’d bloody well hope not !

[tazio]

Deceleration is negative acceleration.
Acceleration was still positive but the amount went down.

When the high acceleration of the catapult stops at the end of it's travel
the acceleration drops to just that of the jet engines producing the negative
jerk motion (head forward).
Even though the velocity and acceleration are still positive the jerk is negative.

The first two are correct.
The third is not.
Also Kirby is strangely quiet on this one.

ok.
thanks.

[Huzo]

ok.
thanks.

No worries.

[Darren Williams]

When under heavy g force loads, it seems to me the body will naturally flex muscles in an instinctual manner. As the g force load is significantly reduced, could it be simply neck muscles that are still flexed throws the head forward?

[roadscum]

When you are no longer accelerating you are no longer GAINING speed. Immediately after leaving the cat you will NOT be accelerating until the jet engine gains enough thrust to overcome the mass of the plane and cause the speed of the plane to increase. Until that time the plane is decelerating and the pilot experiences negative G's.  Simple really.

ac·cel·er·a·tion
/akˌseləˈrāSH(ə)n/
 Learn to pronounce
noun
a vehicle's capacity to gain speed within a short time.

Paul

[Huzo]

When you are no longer accelerating you are no longer GAINING speed. Immediately after leaving the cat you will NOT be accelerating until the jet engine gains enough thrust to overcome the mass of the plane and cause the speed of the plane to increase. Until that time the plane is decelerating and the pilot experiences negative G's.  Simple really.

ac·cel·er·a·tion
/akˌseləˈrāSH(ə)n/
 Learn to pronounce
noun
a vehicle's capacity to gain speed within a short time.

Paul

Utter garbage..
The engine is at full power from the moment the pilot gives the go signal.
Even though it is not capable of accelerating the a/c to the degree of the cat, it is still producing thrust. As the cat releases, the engine does not suddenly think “ jeez, it’s my go now..!”
It is the combination of the cat + thrust (from the engines) that propels the mass down the strip.
If we arbitrarily said that 80% of the acceleration was provided by the cat and 20% by the jets, that would mean that the acc’n would diminish dramatically upon release, agreed, but not completely.
As the aircraft leaves the deck, the thrust from the cat is no longer involved, but there’s a small matter of the massive thrust from the jets. What do you suppose they are doing as the jet it under the effect of the cat ?
Do you think if the cat launched the jet without the engines running, that it would accelerate at  the same rate ?
No.
You are of course correct that it’s simple really, but you need to re think...really.
Let’s try a cave man explanation.
If there are three people each capable of trying to push you out of a doorway, and you are resisting them. They will easily win the battle, but if two suddenly stop, you will not momentarily stop moving because even one can still overcome your resistance.
Remember also, that some of these jets have the thrust to be able to accelerate vertically, so the argument that you need to wait for the thrust to overcome the mass is infantile.
If you bring some science to the table, we may move forward, but until then these opposing arguments are no more than half baked, unsupported guesses.
If my theorising is incorrect which is not out of the question, pull it to bits and point out where.
The argument about holding the neck muscles against the acceleration only to have your head thrown forward by your own effort, is the only one that I see that has any merit, although it seems unlikely from a pilot of that level of skill and experience.
If little Tommy has been blessed enough to get a ride in an F/A 18 Super Hornet off a carrier then his lack of experience may produce such a reaction, but otherwise it’s green screen or bullshit.
Possibly both.

[bad Chad]

Is there such a thing as an active duty fighter pilot with 35 years experience?? Sounds absurd.

[Old Jock]

Utter garbage..
The engine is at full power from the moment the pilot gives the go signal.
Even though it is not capable of accelerating the a/c to the degree of the cat, it is still producing thrust. As the cat releases, the engine does not suddenly think “ jeez, it’s my go now..!”
If we arbitrarily said that 80% of the acceleration was provided by the cat and 20% by the jets, that would mean that the acc’n would diminish dramatically upon release, but not completely.
Do you think if the cat launched the jet without the engines running, that it would accelerate at  the same rate ?
No.
You are of course correct that it’s simple really, but you need to re think...really.
Let’s try a cave man explanation.
If there are three people each capable of trying to push you out of a doorway, and you are resisting them. They will easily win the battle, but if two suddenly stop, you will not momentarily stop moving because even one can still overcome your resistance.
Remember also, that some of these jets have the thrust to be able to accelerate vertically, so the argument that you need to wait for the thrust to overcome the mass is infantile.

A trifle harsh

[Huzo]

A trifle harsh

Only line#1 and line#9 John.

[hauto]

Come on,it's a movie.I'll go, and see some bad ass shots of jet fighters on the big screen. I saw the first one in a theater and it was cool back then. "high way to the danger zone"

[Cam3512]

Are you really arguing the physics of being catapulted off an aircraft carrier from you computer keyboard?  How about finding someone that's DONE it and ask them?

[Huzo]

Are you really arguing the physics of being catapulted off an aircraft carrier from you computer keyboard?  How about finding someone that's DONE it and ask them?

Well Cam.
I guess we’re both guilty of that, also if you can bring someone to the table I’ll be first to drag up a chair. What irks me is not the fact that someone says I’m wrong, it’s when you drag up a solid basis for a theory, you’re responded to by something like....”yeh but...yeh but....”
Tell me how your head can be displaced ahead of the system that you’re contained in, by anything other than a deceleration of the craft, even under the effect of two massive engines operating at full power, and I’ll go red and retreat.
Also.
In a previous life at a lesser level, I’ve seen pilots that can perform highly skilfull manoeuvres in aircraft quite successfully, by virtue of the fact that they are not dead, and then go on and explain aspects of the physics involved that are demonstrably rubbish.
I saw the head go forward as we all did, and I was given to wonder if it’s a fabrication for dramatic effect, green screen Hollywood or Tom was pushing like buggery against the g load and his head went forward under the effect of his own neck muscles when the acceleration reduced dramatically.
Forget this other crap about the a/c slowing while the engine/s caught up” or heads flying forward due to reduction in acceleration etc...
As you say, either find a pilot, or I say find a Physicist, or somebody better go and read a book on Newton’s Laws of Motion.

[Huzo]

Come on,it's a movie.I'll go, and see some bad ass shots of jet fighters on the big screen. I saw the first one in a theater and it was cool back then. "high way to the danger zone"

Agreed mate, good old Kenny eh...?
I went and saw something in a theatre once when I turned 18, that turned out to be different in reality also..
I just don’t want someone pissing on my leg, then tell me “it’s raining”.
Especially Hollywood bullshit artists.

[Cam3512]

Okay, just called my uncle who now lives in San Diego.  Retired as a Captain after 30 years with American Airlines after getting out of the Navy.  He says engines ARE at full thrust before being catapulted off the carrier.  The G's are so tremendous that there is an ever so subtle moment of deceleration after being launched that your head does bounce forward.  When we're talking that kind of speed, especially an F18, it doesn't take much.  His Viet Nam era A6 was probably a pig in comparison, but it happened to his head as well.

There were a few times when the catapult didn't do its intended job, and his plane skated off the carrier.  Had to really step on the gas before he went splash.  He recounts in his book losing some friends that went straight into the drink.    Can't imagine the skill and balls it took, not to mention being in his early '20's!

[RinkRat II]

   Believe it or don't.  At the three second mark and at the 3:48 mark both pilots are subjected to the same phenomena.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9D1Ls-_JM
     
            Paul B

[Huzo]

   Believe it or don't.  At the three second mark and at the 3:48 mark both pilots are subjected to the same phenomena.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9D1Ls-_JM
     
            Paul B

Ok then..
That’s pretty darn convincing.
Their heads do snap forward so I unreservedly back away from my stance that it  doesn’t happen, clearly it does.
Interestingly enough, I notice that the pilot’s head is not snugged into a support during take off, so I’m now of the opinion that the post that said the pilot was bracing against 2 or 3 g’s and when it reduced to 1 or so, his neck muscles slammed his head forward was on the money.
Tusayan, post #17...
Now THAT I accept.
No one has lost an eye here. Thank you to all who took the time to help.

[tazio]

I like turtles

[PJPR01]

I like turtles

 











No Guzzi for Maverick...too slow for the movie!  Kawasaki rules again...I'm sure the bike will provide some head jerking action, just like the catapult! 

Time to enjoy the movie...the original one was on a few days ago.  Always fun to watch...

Permission to Buzz the tower sir...Permission DENIED!!   :)

[oldbike54]

 <sigh>

 Dusty

[tazio]

Case closed. Pass the popcorn

[Huzo]

Case closed. Pass the popcorn

Sorry, just for the record.
What do we conclude was the reason ?

[tazio]

If the pilot braces his head against a given acceleration and that acceleration suddenly halves, his neck muscles will push his head forward before he has time to react.

[Huzo]

Ahh, so it’s the neck muscles that propel the head forward, not any of the other reasons given in responses.
How utterly surprising..( I just needed someone else to say it )
We can disregard every explanation except response #17.
Thank you and goodnight 

[oldbike54]

 I think we should wait until our ex-carrier based jet jockey weighs in before anyone gets all excited .

 I'm thinking back to drag racing a pretty fast motorcycle equipped with an quick shifter that employed a kill switch . Just bang and the next gear was engaged , the deceleration was barely perceptible , but I could feel my body shift forward just a bit during the milliseconds when the bike wasn't accelerating quite as hard . There was  Kawasaki based Top Alcohol bike that would show up ridden by a slip of a girl , I remember watching her pitch forward the two times she shifted the bike in 1,000 feet . Dunno , just observation , but on both bikes the rider was working pretty hard to keep from sliding back under full acceleration .

 Anyone wanna hire an old guy with a gut to pilot a drag bike ? Maybe someone has some video from inside a Pro Stock car .

 Dusty

[Daniel Kalal]

Thank you and goodnight

Oh dear; this thread has had quite a good run.
1)the nose gear of the airplane is quite firmly fixed to the catapult all the way to the end.
2)the pilot holds up-elevator through the entire launch.
3)by the time the airplane reaches the end, it really, really, wants to fly, but the catapult won't let it.
4)when the catapult finally disengages, the airplane pitches up, quickly, just as you'd expect it would (even if it overall sinks downward at times).
5)when the airplane pitches up, the pilot will pitch forward (relative to his cockpit).
6)there's more to acceleration than just linear...

[Huzo]

4)when the catapult finally disengages, the airplane pitches up, quickly, just as you'd expect it would (even if it overall sinks downward at times).
5)when the airplane pitches up, the pilot will pitch forward (relative to his cockpit).

Yaawwwnn... Good morning..!
Where were you at the start Daniel ?
I guess you’ll claim that you knew this all along but even if it just occurred to you, I gotta’ say that your explanation seems extremely valid.
I didn’t think of that aspect and I am inclined to accept it as fact. It really does make sense, more violent than I would have imagined, but then again the experience of a cat launch from a carrier is something that is destined to stay in my imagination for as far forward as I can see.
BTW.
There are threads on this board that have run longer than this one will and no one got snarky...
The violent pitching of the jet has rotated the headrest away from the pilot’s head more so than the pilot’s head pitching forward if I’m understanding you.
Thanks Daniel..

[Daniel Kalal]

Where were you at the start Daniel ?

…a topic concerning the lack of physics accuracy in movies?

The pitching of the jet has rotated the headrest away from the pilot’s head

It’s a moving reference system that the pilot is part of.  The cockpit is subjected to a pitching rotation and the pilot’s head isn’t keeping up.  The pilot will feel his seat pull away from him, while he is firmly strapped to that same seat.

The effect is more pronounced than during flight since the pitching rotation on release is about the main gear contact point (well below the pilot) and not about the c.g. of the airplane (closer to the pilot).

[Huzo]

…a topic concerning the lack of physics accuracy in movies?
It’s a moving reference system that the pilot is part of.  The cockpit is subjected to a pitching rotation and the pilot’s head isn’t keeping up.  The pilot will feel his seat pull away from him, while he is firmly strapped to that same seat.

The effect is more pronounced than during flight since the pitching rotation on release is about the main gear contact point (well below the pilot) and not about the c.g. of the airplane (closer to the pilot).

Yep, I get all that. Good stuff.
See, this is what I like..
Fundamental science based opinions that are defendable against a dissenting argument, not some lame arsed, half baked theory based on a lifetime of believing a false premise and trying to breathe life into a dying argument by introducing unrelated analogies..
There is only one thing wrong with everything you said Daniel..
IT WASN’T ME WHO SAID IT...! (but I wish I had)