NGC: Top Gun Maverick

[Numbercruncher]

Cool!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=46&v=i3QM2GCmRPM

[RinkRat II]

       Negative G's from the catapult to the thrust of the turbines.

           Paul B

[Huzo]

       Negative G's from the catapult to the thrust of the turbines.

           Paul B

That’s interesting...?
So what causes the deceleration after the catapult has done it’s job ?
Must be my less than adequate tech school education, I thought for your head to be slammed forward you’d have to be experiencing a reduction in velocity, but there you go..
There’s another reason why I’m not a Top Gun..
For those left mystified as to what question was being answered in reply#1.
I was given to wonder why our hero’s head shot forward upon clearing the deck, I pulled the post so as not to start a cat fight.
Looks like it’s too late..

[RinkRat II]

     You are correct in that the catapult for the given distance propels you faster than the thrust of the jets for the same distance. It's also why you see the aircraft drop off the flight deck for a second or two until the thrust takes over. Momentary reduction in velocity.

      Paul B

[LowRyter]

oh boy

[molly]

Real life top guns in the Welsh hills filmed by the public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zhAekECH78&t=286s

[Steve_M]

My son's ship is in one of the promotional posters.  First time he got to see the butt end of an aircraft carrier at sea.  Usually they're 90 miles or so from the carrier.

[Cam3512]

My uncle Alan flew A6 Intruders off a carrier in Viet Nam.  He recently wrote a book about his combat time.  The REAL deal.  He's at war with cancer now.    I will see the movie though.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Mist-Alan-G-Fischer/dp/1732298408

[Huzo]

    It's also why you see the aircraft drop off the flight deck for a second or two until the thrust takes over. Momentary reduction in velocity.

      Paul B

That’ll be an angle of attack thing too.
You’ll notice that the jet sinks until the nose can be raised somewhat to increase the lift generated as the airspeed comes up.

[Murray]

Didn't think the Fa18 E's were supersonic capable at sea level especailly with jugs on,nm. Was reading up some time ago a description of a cat launch and part of the procedure was for the pilot to hang onto handles no where near the flight controls for launch, launch is carried out at a trim setting and they grab the controls once they are off the end of the deck. Its to aviod unintended inputs, this one however always stick in my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOgrcuJVy-s

Motorcycles remeber them looks like he's got a Kawi H2 run around on in the film.

[TOMB]

It's like this ,

The catapult is

 "failing to transmit to redundant equipment.". Code 937 USAF 1966-1970

TOMB

[Old Jock]

Huzo

I think that the catpult will more or less be accelerating you all the way to the end of the deck.

When you leave the cat, although still accelerating your rate will be reduced, as the engines don't have the same Ooomph as the cat.

The sudden reduction in acceleration will result in that jerk. You don't have to be reducing velocity simply the rate at which the velocity increases will cause it remember it's (m/s)/s that's causes the force. 

Apollo 13 skip to 6:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-JdqHxqkHA

Great trailer thanks for posting Numbercruncher

[rdbandkab]

Real life top guns in the Welsh hills filmed by the public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zhAekECH78&t=286s

Was lucky enough to be riding with my wife in NC when 3 of the Ospreys(?) (pictured 1st in the Youtube video) were just getting underway..   Awesome. 
Damn if I can remember where we were...but we were on our way to Pilot Mountain. 


*I believe I see an old 900 Kawi and the new H2 Ninja in the trailer?

[Cam3512]

My uncle Alan flew A6 Intruders off a carrier in Viet Nam.  He recently wrote a book about his combat time.  The REAL deal.  He's at war with cancer now.    I will see the movie though.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Mist-Alan-G-Fischer/dp/1732298408

Imagine launching off a carrier at 3am in total darkness in the middle to a tropical monsoon.  Intruders were rarely grounded regardless of the weather.  Then if you made it off the ship, you flew straight into a storm of AAA gunfire.   Then if you made it through that and drop your bombs, you had to make it back and land on that tossing and turning little patch of runway in the middle of an ocean in the same weather.

[Roebling3]

Is there a 100% positive way to get rid all ordinance? Safely? Given there is no hazard to the innocent.
We knew a partially filled drop tank would free fight itself on landing. ~ 70 yards. F51, late '50's.  R3~

[Huzo]

John.
The Apollo thing was a movie also....
As I see it, when our hero in the jet was released from the cat, his ACCELERATION RATE decreased to that supplied by the engines.
That is true.
But.
I contend that for your head to be thrown forward, you have to be experiencing a reduction in velocity, or else the mass of your head which is only tied to the accelerating jet by your neck, would not begin to move ahead of the rest of the system.
If you sit snugly in a fast car and floor it off the line, you’ll be forced against the seat by the acceleration which for arguments sake might be 4 m/s squared.
If you then reduce your acceleration rate to say 2m/s squared, you’ll experience a reduction in the force by which your head is held to the seat because Force=mass x acceleration (or velocity squared).
Your head will not be thrown forward as you reduce your acceleration, only touching the brake will do that.
Only a reduction in velocity, will produce a displacement of your head in the forward direction. (Newton)
If you hang a small mass from a string inside your car and have that mass resting gently against a stop behind it, then take off flat out in your car, the mass will be held against the stop.
If you then back off a bit but keep accelerating gently, the mass will still remain against the stop, just not as forcefully,
Our Tom may have indeed been in the jet on t/o, but the forward motion of his head was not due to a reduction in acceleration in it’s intrinsic form.
We/I need a Physicist.
Have we got one of those ?

[Murray]

Is there a 100% positive way to get rid all ordinance? Safely? Given there is no hazard to the innocent.
We knew a partially filled drop tank would free fight itself on landing. ~ 70 yards. F51, late '50's.  R3~

There is a emergency jetison, depending on the aircraft will dump the mounted ordinace without pulling the arming pins and in some cases will also dump some of the mounting hardware. With no threat to innocence well other than some tonnage falling from the sky at speed.

Most live ranges in Australia and I assume other places they go to great lengths to find ordinace that may have been dropped and didn't go bang especially if it was dropped armed with modern navigation aids its probablly a lot easier than it used to be. This was some time ago but the RAAF got to fire one Harpoon a year and this was rotated between the pigs orions and the 18's. They did do quite a bit of bombing though.

[Tusayan]

Only a reduction in velocity, will produce a displacement of your head in the forward direction.

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]

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.

Yes !
That is a good answer to the question. It’s always been possible that what is happening is as you describe, the only question I have which is destined to remain unanswered is...
Why would a pilot with 30 years service, multiple kills, 2 star Admiral potential and a Top Gun...? Attempt to hold his head forward against the violent accelerations of a cat launch, when Mc Donnell Douglas provided a nice headrest to be used during such operations..
I guess only Tom knows that. I guess it’s another one of “life’s little mysteries....” 

[Old Jock]

Real cat launches, just the first video I cam across, skip to 0:40 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBYzzkiEVVs

[Huzo]

Real cat launches, just the first video I cam across, skip to 0:40 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBYzzkiEVVs

There does seem to be that jerk forwards John.
I’m gunna’ have to re think...(I think )
All my theory might be well and good, but the reality seems different.

[Murray]

Yes !
That is a good answer to the question. It’s always been possible that what is happening is as you describe, the only question I have which is destined to remain unanswered is...
Why would a pilot with 30 years service, multiple kills, 2 star Admiral potential and a Top Gun...? Attempt to hold his head forward against the violent accelerations of a cat launch, when Mc Donnell Douglas provided a nice headrest to be used during such operations..
I guess only Tom knows that. I guess it’s another one of “life’s little mysteries....” 

He won't be holding his head forward its the momentum of the head which unlike the rest of the pilot is not strapped to the seat carring the head forward reacting to the loss of approx 2-3g of acceleration of the cat shot. Jets are capable of high speed, relatively they don't actually accelerate very quickly even with things like afterburner.

[Huzo]

He won't be holding his head forward its the momentum of the head which unlike the rest of the pilot is not strapped to the seat carring the head forward reacting to the loss of approx 2-3g of acceleration of the cat shot. Jets are capable of high speed, relatively they don't actually accelerate very quickly even with things like afterburner.

Murray, that is not theoretically correct in the strictest sense.
A reduction in acceleration does not result in a forward jerk, it’s a reduction in velocity that does that.
A reduction in acceleration results in a reduction of pressure forcing your head backwards, if you jump in a V8 Commodore with your head against the headrest and plant your foot you’ll surely feel your head forced rearwards.
If you then ease off the throttle and reduce the acceleration, you’ll feel a reduction in rearwards pressure but not a forward jerk.
I’m prepared to admit without reservation that if the headrest was sprung, then a removal of acceleration to constant velocity would surely result in a forward jerk, due to the stored energy in the headrest.

[Murray]

Murray, that is not theoretically correct in the strictest sense.
A reduction in acceleration does not result in a forward jerk, it’s a reduction in velocity that does that.

Newton says: Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.

The external force been the head connected to the rest of the body via the spine. On an experinced aircrew would it be as pronounced? probabbly not.

Rough calculations (based on wikepedia number) says a cat shot produces approx 2-3 g's of constant acceleration, this acceleration is basically instantly removed once off the end of the deck once the drag overtakes the momentum of the aircraft been genreous there might be 0.5 g contiuning fromt eh engines, full fuel, gear out flaps out and ordanace.
Your V8 commodore might be able to produce 1-1.5 g in acceleration for a very brief period at its peak not 2-3g for 2-4 secounds, the forces will be applied in a relatively gentlile form in realms of what your neck can cope with.

It's the sudden removal of a constant acceleration not any loss of velocity, this is the critical point of difference.

[tazio]

 Murray "It's the sudden removal of a constant acceleration".
I think y'all getting closer.
All very interesting.

[Huzo]

Murray "It's the sudden removal of a constant acceleration".
I think y'all getting closer.
All very interesting.

The waters are being muddied.
In reality, the apparent movement of your head forwards is not what’s happening. It’s your head continuing as Newton said in a uniform plane of motion and the rest of the system slowing slightly that would need to occur for a forward slam of the head.
If the pilot was trying to keep his head off the backrest during acceleration, that would then result in a forward movement as someone said earlier, but that involves conjecture.
Some here have to come to terms with the fact that a reduction in acceleration, will not of itself produce a forward slam of the head.
Consider the mass on a string, hanging from inside your car example.

[Huzo]

Murray "It's the sudden removal of a constant acceleration".

The pilot’s head has been accelerated up to say 200 kts for arguments sake, at separation.
For the pilots head to APPARENTLY move forward, the jet has to ACTUALLY slow slightly, because our hero’s head is continuing to move forward @ 200 kts as Isaac said, the jet would have to have decelerated momentarily.
Given that there is always some degree of thrust acting on the mass, I’d say BS.

[LowRyter]

I've held my tongue, I remember the first movie where they were dogfighting F14s against (russian) T38s....... I saw enough to wait for Kirby or someone else smarter than me to say something. 

I am sure I'll see the new movie <shrug> (sooner or later).

[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.

[Huzo]

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



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.