Top Gun: Maverick
- Thread starter Jimmy McGill
- Start date
Worried about Mach 10, but not maverick pulling almost 10gs on the training course and aiming a rocket at a target.
I'll f with it all I want. While entertaining, it is complete bullshit.
And you didn’t even mention the best part of the movie…..
While acting like the drone ranger….
Last edited:
That has nothing to do with top speed...it's all about the acceleration to get there. At a constant 1G acceleration...the equivalent of Earth's gravity...you can eventually approach the speed of light, and you'd never feel a thing.
I'm not saying you are wrong.....but where is the science to prove that? I'm seriously just trying to learn.
Imagine a car that can do 250 mph. If you accelerate to that top speed in 5 seconds, you'll be pushed back into your seat. Accelerate to that speed in five minutes and you'll barely notice it. Cruising at that top speed is absolutely no different than cruising at 60 mph. With your eyes closed, you have absolutely no way to tell how fast you're going. It's acceleration - not top speed - that causes g-forces. Again, the astronauts on the ISS are traveling at Mach 25. But that speed is constant, so they just float around. They feel no g-forces because there's no acceleration.
No idea what else to tell you. Acceleration and speed are two different things. You can feel the ACCELERATION of gravity - 9.8 m/s/s - because you're pressing down on the floor (or you can jump off a building). You don't feel the constant SPEED of the Earth's rotation - in Iowa, that would be around 790 mph - because that speed is constant. Yes, there is some slight acceleration because you're traveling in a circle, but that circle is so huge that the centripetal force acting on your body is negligible.
I’m no physicist, but isn’t it the same principle as weightlessness training? You’re not really floating, you’re just falling at the same speed as the airplane. And if you don’t secure yourself before the pilot levels off, you’ll whack the floor of the aircraft.
I taught basic physics for 30 years and basic aerodynamics for over a decade. And this is very basic stuff.
My BIL who is retired AF and has worked for multiple defense contractors. He tells me I'm wrong. So be it. I guess the my final point is....we have no use for planes that can travel that fast and I don't want to see our airmen flying such a thing if/when invented.
I'm not denigrating your expertise, but this is literally middle school physics. If you've ever been in a simulator, you've experienced it. The ride never moves but they can tilt it and use the acceleration of gravity to fool you into thinking you're speeding up or slowing down or turning.
Never been on it but my no-pic wife and son stood in line for two hours to ride it. As soon as they were done, they got back in line to do it again. It was that good according to them.
I would be a terrible pilot. My head would get all junked up. I'm a ground walker.
In principle, you are correct. I am, however, anal retentive and find inaccuracies in movies disturbing.
Hot take- but I’d never air that long for an “experience”.
That said- we rode on some lame avatar ride that was a lame boat ride thing, then did the proper ride We rode twice, I almost fainted twice, and only because we had a “genie pass” for a make a wish trip
Damn it Jim, I didn’t realize ISIS and Russia got to you. Get out before they suck you in too deep!
Jimmy's right. Movie is mediocre. I only masturbated twice in the theater while watching it.
Dom's family flew a Pontiac into space and OP wants to jack with my TG Maverick!?
Don't get me going on Tom Cruise movies..... or more to the point the bullshit that Maverick was.
I’m wanted to be Tom cruise when top gun came out in 5th grade. So nostalgia vibes for him. I know he’s a weirdo in real life but I am entertained by his movies.
I like him in a few movies. He creeps me out in real life. He is a great actor...just weird. I stand by my statements about Maverick. We have all seen good actors take shit jobs just for the money.
It was entertaining. Not good, but entertaining. Kind of like gladiator 2, but better.
I don't know anything about Mach levels and the dangers of it but I knew it was bullshit, and the film should have contrived a different opening scene.
The new younger pilots were boring and weren't as likeable as the first movie.
The movie really reminds you that Rooster is Goose's son. Like ten times.
2 Things that made me kind of like the movie is it doesnt feel like a modern action movie. Everyone feels normal.
And I have a late relative who was a pilot at Top Gun, went on to marines afterwards. He said the notion of people joking around and turning their heads often while flying anything like a F-15 or faster would never really happen
The new younger pilots were boring and weren't as likeable as the first movie.
The movie really reminds you that Rooster is Goose's son. Like ten times.
2 Things that made me kind of like the movie is it doesnt feel like a modern action movie. Everyone feels normal.
And I have a late relative who was a pilot at Top Gun, went on to marines afterwards. He said the notion of people joking around and turning their heads often while flying anything like a F-15 or faster would never really happen
I agree that that there was some entertainment value. Just a horseshit story that was made to build up Cruise's ego
Top Gun Maverick is a frack'n national treasure!
We can discuss the physics anytime. A 5th grader should understand it.
1. Achieving high Mach levels where there is an atmosphere or "air" is difficult due to drag. That is why the speed of sound aka one Mach, named for the Austrian physicist, Ernst Mach, is calculated at sea level. As you go higher in altitude, you can achieve the same sea level Mach number at lower speed due to less drag. In space, where there's essentially no drag due to no atmosphere and a virtual vacuum, extremely high Mach numbers are sustainable. These don't apply just to space craft but ballistic missiles that are launched with parabolic trajectories. I am referring to icbms and the new hypersonic missiles. The tradeoff is that when they re-enter any, especially Earth's atmosphere, they have to ablate or bleed off speed. You know what happened to Columbia. Achieving high Mach numbers in traditional aircraft is simply impossible due to drag and to my next point acceleration. This was experimented wt the usaf x15 and those are my heroes, not some Hollywood midget.
2. High Mach numbers south of 80 to 100k feet, so far, haven't been achieved. Supersonic aircraft and hypersonic missiles routinely do between Mach 3 and Mach 7. Examples include the mig 25, mig 31 and Sr 71. Missiles include the Russian zircon, Indian brahmos and some stuff the Chinese and us have.
3. On earth versus space and humans and speed. Most humans can sustain south of 6g's in terms of acceleration and deceleration. That's taking your body weight and multiplying by 9.8 if you were in metric numbers. So the disconnect is this. If you are to be launched in space, the space craft still does modest speed, especially acceleration, until it leaves the atmosphere. Even the space shuttle, either upon take off or landing, didn't do north of Mach 2 when it was in the earth's atmosphere. This subjected the astronauts to about 2.5 to 5g, which trained astronauts can easily handle. Once the vehicle is exoatmospheric, much higher speeds are possible since there is no drag opposing the vehicle. And for all intents and purposes if we were to view the shuttle, the net mass of the shuttle is vehicle plus stuff inside aka humans. The speed, technically velocity, is borne by this entire mass. The velocity on the astronauts and is 0. The g force on the astronauts is 0. If you want to test this, stand in an elevator. Your velocity will be zero even as the elevator takes you up. When is going up, try to jump. Your velocity is no longer 0 and you will feel pulled to the elevator floor since your vector will oppose the velocity vector of the elevator.
@Jimmy McGill is correct that we do not have manned aircraft that are currently hypersonic since the acceleration or deceleration would exceed human limits and scramble the occupants. @tarheelbybirth is correct that manned space craft do much higher speeds. However, comparing a to b ignores one great factor: the atmosphere, drag. Next time let's chat about material science.
1. Achieving high Mach levels where there is an atmosphere or "air" is difficult due to drag. That is why the speed of sound aka one Mach, named for the Austrian physicist, Ernst Mach, is calculated at sea level. As you go higher in altitude, you can achieve the same sea level Mach number at lower speed due to less drag. In space, where there's essentially no drag due to no atmosphere and a virtual vacuum, extremely high Mach numbers are sustainable. These don't apply just to space craft but ballistic missiles that are launched with parabolic trajectories. I am referring to icbms and the new hypersonic missiles. The tradeoff is that when they re-enter any, especially Earth's atmosphere, they have to ablate or bleed off speed. You know what happened to Columbia. Achieving high Mach numbers in traditional aircraft is simply impossible due to drag and to my next point acceleration. This was experimented wt the usaf x15 and those are my heroes, not some Hollywood midget.
2. High Mach numbers south of 80 to 100k feet, so far, haven't been achieved. Supersonic aircraft and hypersonic missiles routinely do between Mach 3 and Mach 7. Examples include the mig 25, mig 31 and Sr 71. Missiles include the Russian zircon, Indian brahmos and some stuff the Chinese and us have.
3. On earth versus space and humans and speed. Most humans can sustain south of 6g's in terms of acceleration and deceleration. That's taking your body weight and multiplying by 9.8 if you were in metric numbers. So the disconnect is this. If you are to be launched in space, the space craft still does modest speed, especially acceleration, until it leaves the atmosphere. Even the space shuttle, either upon take off or landing, didn't do north of Mach 2 when it was in the earth's atmosphere. This subjected the astronauts to about 2.5 to 5g, which trained astronauts can easily handle. Once the vehicle is exoatmospheric, much higher speeds are possible since there is no drag opposing the vehicle. And for all intents and purposes if we were to view the shuttle, the net mass of the shuttle is vehicle plus stuff inside aka humans. The speed, technically velocity, is borne by this entire mass. The velocity on the astronauts and is 0. The g force on the astronauts is 0. If you want to test this, stand in an elevator. Your velocity will be zero even as the elevator takes you up. When is going up, try to jump. Your velocity is no longer 0 and you will feel pulled to the elevator floor since your vector will oppose the velocity vector of the elevator.
@Jimmy McGill is correct that we do not have manned aircraft that are currently hypersonic since the acceleration or deceleration would exceed human limits and scramble the occupants. @tarheelbybirth is correct that manned space craft do much higher speeds. However, comparing a to b ignores one great factor: the atmosphere, drag. Next time let's chat about material science.
Btw I mentioned earlier that each movie did go to lengths to try to be accurate, and looked at this scene as a huge counter example, but it really made me a think of another WTF impossibility of a goofy scene that didn't make sense. The Polaroid scene in the original. The top of the vertical stabilizers even on a fighter jet is like a god damned basketball hoop over the top of the main fuselage. It's literally physically impossible, each tailfin would be sticking like 5 feet into the other planes fuselage. All for such a cheesy scene. F14s even have two of them...
Well, thank God we have "Transformers" to bring us all back to reality.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Iowa to Host a Different Northern Illinois Transfer Portal Receiver
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
