Top Gun 2

wanttaja said:
The problem *has* been addressed before. Both the B-58 and the XB-70 had ejection capsules for their crews.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/eb58caps.htm

http://www.ejectionsite.com/xb70caps.htm

Not unlikely that a similar type of system would be installed on a Mach 10 aircraft. Just because Maverick didn't drag one behind him when he entered the cafe doesn't mean he didn't leave one in a field somewhere.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I don’t know, Mav was covered in soot. I think the aircraft disintegrated around him.
 
Oldmanb777 said:
We went to see it this afternoon. Very entertaining. We enjoyed it. Gotta remember "IT'S HOLLYWOOD" so expectations need to be in perspective. My Wife was mostly interested in the beach scene. "The best part of the movie". But a nice mix of old, new and retro remembering. Pretty unreal, but thats Hollywood.

As previously said, we both found it a bit comical to see an Air Force commercial before the movie.
Click to expand...

I heard they use little or no CGI…so the flying scenes should have been realistic?
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
I heard they use little or no CGI…so the flying scenes should have been realistic?
Click to expand...

There’s a lot of CGI but it was realistic looking. Hard to find an SR-72, F-14 and SU-57 in real life.
 
35 AoA said:
This needs to be updated on ejectionsite ASAP :p
Click to expand...

I’ll get right on it but unless I go back to 1999, it’ll be hard to do. Still an interesting site though. Some good stories. Never really thought about how an SR-71 ejection was possible. The difference between indicated and true at 80,000 ft is pretty significant.
 
Velocity173 said:
I’ll get right on it but unless I go back to 1999, it’ll be hard to do. Still an interesting site though. Some good stories. Never really thought about how an SR-71 ejection was possible. The difference between indicated and true at 80,000 ft is pretty significant.
Click to expand...

Whole lot less wind blast at 80K :D
 
Velocity173 said:
I’ll get right on it but unless I go back to 1999, it’ll be hard to do. Still an interesting site though. Some good stories. Never really thought about how an SR-71 ejection was possible. The difference between indicated and true at 80,000 ft is pretty significant.
Click to expand...

Pugs said:
Whole lot less wind blast at 80K :D
Click to expand...

That brings up an interesting question, in an ejection (or bail out) scenario, does the pilot feel indicated or true airspeed in his face?
 
midwestpa24 said:
That brings up an interesting question, in an ejection (or bail out) scenario, does the pilot feel indicated or true airspeed in his face?
Click to expand...


Indicated.

The wind in his face is the same wind going into the pitot. The actual rate he’s moving through the air is TAS, of course, but what he feels is the same that the pitot feels, IAS.
 
Half Fast said:
Indicated.

The wind in his face is the same wind going into the pitot. The actual rate he’s moving through the air is TAS, of course, but what he feels is the same that the pitot feels, IAS.
Click to expand...

That would be my theory as well, but I'm not expert at high altitude, high speed ejection scenarios.
 
midwestpa24 said:
That brings up an interesting question, in an ejection (or bail out) scenario, does the pilot feel indicated or true airspeed in his face?
Click to expand...

Indicated. On that website it brought up the SR-71 ejection at 80K. While they were traveling at Mach 3 true, they said indicated was around 460 MPH.

Speed of sound is far less at that altitude as well. I’ve heard with the U-2, at altitude they’re like within 10 kts of stalling or going supersonic.
 
Last edited:
Seen it twice now... more little details popping out. That’s fun.
 
thinking about the f-14 cgi
I was discussing with someone, and it dawned on me that while it was reported to be CGI, maybe its possible that some of it was archival footage...or based on archival footage
and the interior cockpit shots and shots on the ground could have been from a museum bird someplace....
 
Brad W said:
thinking about the f-14 cgi
I was discussing with someone, and it dawned on me that while it was reported to be CGI, maybe its possible that some of it was archival footage...or based on archival footage
and the interior cockpit shots and shots on the ground could have been from a museum bird someplace....
Click to expand...


Maybe....

But archival footage wouldn't have been shot in IMAX format. I don't know how reformatting would have worked or looked, but I suppose it's possible.
 
Brad W said:
thinking about the f-14 cgi
I was discussing with someone, and it dawned on me that while it was reported to be CGI, maybe its possible that some of it was archival footage...or based on archival footage
and the interior cockpit shots and shots on the ground could have been from a museum bird someplace....
Click to expand...

The ground Tomcat for cockpit scenes is an actual Tomcat from the Museum in Gillespie San Diego. They refurbed it and shipped it over to the Roosevelt for the movie.
 
Although I'm a little surprised that Cruise doesn't have his own personal F-14.....
 
Half Fast said:
Although I'm a little surprised that Cruise doesn't have his own personal F-14.....
Click to expand...

He could probably obtain a shell of one from a museum to put in his hangar but he’d never be able to get an airworthy one. There was talk years ago of Dale “Snort” Snodgrass trying to obtain an airworthy one but DoD denied it. Parts restriction to prevent Iran from maintaining their existing Tomcats.
 
Velocity173 said:
He could probably obtain a shell of one from a museum to put in his hangar but he’d never be able to get an airworthy one. There was talk years ago of Dale “Snort” Snodgrass trying to obtain an airworthy one but DoD denied it. Parts restriction to prevent Iran from maintaining their existing Tomcats.
Click to expand...
Maybe put the shell on a Volkswagen chassis and have a replica. ;)
 
Just came from seeing it. My vote for best line ... "You told me not to think!"
 
“Ya, well, it’s good to see ya.”

I’m already memorizing lines. Hmmm...

Tools
and the only look I got
 
Velocity173 said:
He could probably obtain a shell of one from a museum to put in his hangar but he’d never be able to get an airworthy one. There was talk years ago of Dale “Snort” Snodgrass trying to obtain an airworthy one but DoD denied it. Parts restriction to prevent Iran from maintaining their existing Tomcats.
Click to expand...

I find it both impressive and a little sad that DoD is afraid of an airplane that first flew 50+ years ago. And I'm not arguing at all with their assessment of the risk.
 
Albany Tom said:
I find it both impressive and a little sad that DoD is afraid of an airplane that first flew 50+ years ago. And I'm not arguing at all with their assessment of the risk.
Click to expand...

Don't think it is a real fear, just not wanting to enable Iran to maintain/sustain their fleet. Realistically, the Tomcat still has the ability to wreak regional chaos, even if it would get smoked very rapidly by US/NATO forces.
 
Warning: spoiler alert.

 
Saw TG2 yesterday. I think it is better than the original.
 
Not intended to be a spoiler, I haven't seen the movie yet, but in reference to the Star Wars thing, what always bugged me about that is that indirect fire was invented by at least the civil war, and precision guided munitions in WW2. So somehow we forgot all of that in the future, and recreate Bridges over Toko-Ri with spaceships?
 
Albany Tom said:
Not intended to be a spoiler, I haven't seen the movie yet, but in reference to the Star Wars thing, what always bugged me about that is that indirect fire was invented by at least the civil war, and precision guided munitions in WW2. So somehow we forgot all of that in the future, and recreate Bridges over Toko-Ri with spaceships?
Click to expand...
“A long time ago, in a galaxy far away.” That explains it.
 
My wife had the Today show on in the background. there was some story about the film....I don't even know what the story really was, not listening......
but hearing "Top Gun" I looked up to see a nice presentation graphic slide, completely with a really nice "clip art" shot of a fighter jet over on the side, just for visual splash....a nice picture looking up the pipes of a banking jet.....
I just said why are they showing an Air Force jet and talking about Top Gun?...... it was an F-15!!!! :confused:
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen it twice. The photography was fantastic. The plot was a good old 80s rah-rah flick with all the required cliches. The throwbacks were hokey and detracted a lot from the overall movie.
 
Y’know, in the funeral scene, I was half expecting Maverick to toss a nickel onto the grass. It would have been a nice touch.
 
Saw it today. I liked it. It required less suspension of disbelief than I expected, and the flight scenes were pretty cool. A couple of bits were silly, but overall a good fly movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top