Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Wait...what?!?
You thought they just tossed Miles Teller the keys to an F-18 and said "bring 'er back in one piece..."
My understanding is that Cruise can actually fly and that he actually flew that trainer in the scene at the end with Jennifer Connelly. But that part of the Navy allowing them to use the real Hornets was a strict "Tom Cruise can't touch ANYTHING" requirement because...well, his reputation precedes him.
The guys just balls to the walls - but there's no way they're giving a pile of actors control of a fighter jet.
The “trainer” is a P-51 Mustang, and it’s actually owned by Cruise. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
The “trainer” is a P-51 Mustang, and it’s actually owned by Cruise.
Yeah, I realized that when I found the Cordrey video.
So I definitely did it a bit of a disservice, to say the least.
I'll be honest - it's smaller than I expected. I remember seeing the fighters on the carrier in San Diego and thinking they were enormous compared to what I expected. But when they were working on/climbing into that Mustang in the movie - it was just...little.
I guess it doesn't have to be as big without jet engines hooked to it and no missiles (pretty sure they didn't even have rockets on those, correct?) [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I’d imagine a hypersonic jet wouldn’t have an ejection seat but rather a ‘pod’ designed for surviveability. Something similar to the space shuttle. The belief is that the challenger astronauts, at least some of them, survived the breakup because their pod absorbed the forces involved. Unfortunately the chutes didn’t work.
SR-71 blackbird pilot survived something similar. Plane just disintegrated.
We saw it on Saturday. Was awesome.
Brought back a lot of memories of the navy. I obviously didn’t fly but was assigned to a Hornet squadron so a lot of the sounds visuals brought back some memories for sure. I was glad they didn’t go too far down a romance line I liked the right amount of reference to the first movie and nostalgia like the opener etc. and some other subtle stuff and liked the new stuff
only thing that sucked was the literal 30 minutes of movie previews before hand. JFC. granted I haven’t been to a movie in probably 10-12 years.
It was nice to see a good action flick that was about god damn super heroes or comic book characters. Just an over the top action movie [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
That's 4100 ft/minute, no?
That's pretty damn severe, especially for a sub-sonic trainer. About 7 times what a Cessna is rated for.
I'm guessing it just doesn't have the power to simply go nose up and rocket without running out of inertia and stalling. It looks like a maneuverable little thing but doesn't seem like it's incredibly powerful.
Performance isn’t usually published in m/s. It’s usually meters or feet per minute, hence my error.
A fun side fact. F-16s and SU-27s climb around 75,000 feet per minute. You won’t find an official number, though. Secrets and stuff. [Reply]
Originally Posted by notorious:
Performance isn’t usually published in m/s. It’s usually meters or feet per minute, hence my error.
A fun side fact. F-16s and SU-27s climb around 75,000 feet per minute. You won’t find an official number, though. Secrets and stuff.
Yeah, anything with that kind of power to weight ratio is gonna go up almost as fast as it can go forward.
The F-16’s really is/was amazing. That kind of performance and agility at those price tags just doesn’t happen often. Really a remarkable service history for the ‘cheap’ option in our fleet. They set out to build a low-cost alternative to the F-15 and ended up with a damn workhorse. Remarkable work there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, anything with that kind of power to weight ratio is gonna go up almost as fast as it can go forward.
The F-16’s really is/was amazing. That kind of performance and agility at those price tags just doesn’t happen often. Really a remarkable service history for the ‘cheap’ option in our fleet. They set out to build a low-cost alternative to the F-15 and ended up with a damn workhorse. Remarkable work there.
And the F-18 was born out of the competition between the YF-17 and 16. The YF-17 was derived from the F-5.
The F-18 has amazing nose authority that rivals the Su-27/35 and MIG-29/35.
The F-16 is an absolute monster at maintaining energy while doing combat maneuvers. The F-16 XL is amazing in different ways, just didn't have two engines like the Strike Eagle so it lost. [Reply]
Originally Posted by notorious:
And the F-18 was born out of the competition between the YF-17 and 16. The YF-17 was derived from the F-5.
The F-18 has amazing nose authority that rivals the Su-27/35 and MIG-29/35.
The F-16 is an absolute monster at maintaining energy while doing combat maneuvers. The F-16 XL is amazing in different ways, just didn't have two engines like the Strike Eagle so it lost.
Yeah - dunno why but the F-18 sorta became the red-headed step-child of the 4th generation fighters. Always seemed overlook but a remarkably versatile and effective platform in its own right.
It doesn’t have thrust vectoring, does it? What gives it that kind of ability to maneuver like that? I thought thrust vectoring was kinda what made that kind of nose authority possible? Definitely a bit over my skiis there… [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dayze:
It was nice to see a good action flick that was about god damn super heroes or comic book characters. Just an over the top action movie
it’s either a super hero or some James Bond/mission impossible action movie these days.
In the 90’s they made good action movies out of all kinds of plots. Fugitive, Buddy movie, alien invasions, kill the earth meteorite, con’s take over an airplane etc. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, I realized that when I found the Cordrey video.
So I definitely did it a bit of a disservice, to say the least.
I'll be honest - it's smaller than I expected. I remember seeing the fighters on the carrier in San Diego and thinking they were enormous compared to what I expected. But when they were working on/climbing into that Mustang in the movie - it was just...little.
I guess it doesn't have to be as big without jet engines hooked to it and no missiles (pretty sure they didn't even have rockets on those, correct?)
Actually, the P-51D made about 1,750 BHP on WEP and had an initial max climb rate of about 4,000ft/min. For comparison, a modern 737 has a max climb rate of 3,000ft/min. It had a top speed of over 440 mph.
But yeah, the Mustang is not a very big airplane. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah - dunno why but the F-18 sorta became the red-headed step-child of the 4th generation fighters. Always seemed overlook but a remarkably versatile and effective platform in its own right.
It doesn’t have thrust vectoring, does it? What gives it that kind of ability to maneuver like that? I thought thrust vectoring was kinda what made that kind of nose authority possible? Definitely a bit over my skiis there…
The wing extensions on each side of the canopy (greatly enlarged from the YF-17 to F-18) are what gives it amazing nose control at all speeds. If an opponent gets a little slow against an 18 it's ****ed.
The only plane that has thrust vectoring (and only 2 dimensional) is the F-22, for the US. I guess the Marine F-35 counts, but I think it's only used for takeoff and landing just like the Harrier.
Our designers determined there is way too much energy lost while using 3 dimensional vectoring. The Russians have it on a few planes, and they appear to defy physics.
It would be on everything if the US determined it increases lethality. [Reply]
