Top Gun movie - Jet wash/Flat spin

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2005, 02:43
by Bwadwey
In the scene when Maverick and Goose eject, what kind of problem were they in? Somethign called a jet wash I think. What does it mean and how is it created?

RE: Top Gun movie

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2005, 03:14
by DeepSpace
Firstly, it's a fact that when the air enters the engine from the air intake it must be at a sub-sonic speed. Inside the air intake if the F-14 there are a few hydraulic-propelled "plates" that compress the air while the plane flies at super-sonic speed (it's deployed automatically), and therefore the air slows down before it reaches the engine. This system is equivalent to the moving intake of the F-15.

So, in that scene they fly in a sub-sonic speed, and suddenly they cross another jet's trails. That fast-moving air reaches the engines too fast (that system wasn't deployed since they flew in a subsonic speed), and the engine stalled. As a result they entered a falt spin, which is hard to recover from.

RE: Top Gun movie

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2005, 17:33
by VPRGUY
I know it was a movie but... how does an F-14 (or any twin fighter jet) get into a flat spin from losing one engine? Even if the other is in full AB, I would think the engines are close enough to the centerline that it would generate a good yaw, probably a roll as well, but a flat spin?

It is a tough maneuver to get out of; it is also a tough maneuver to get into, and even purpose-designed high end aerobatic aircraft need specific control inputs to enter a flat spin (usually, anyway). I can see a regular spin even, since twin prop aircraft are easy to spin if you lose an engine.

Pretty cool diagrams and description of the F-14 intake system, Deepspace :)

RE: Top Gun movie

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2005, 14:18
by trailmix
lol... I love this stuff :) In the conventional RAM jet the air must be a subsonic speed. NASA proved that supersonic combustion IS possible with their Mach 10+ SCRAM jet last year.

~mix

RE: Top Gun movie

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2005, 09:40
by shiz302
That spin makes about as much sense as goose hitting his head on the canopy too.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2005, 23:51
by Bwadwey
So since the Tomcat and the eagle have the things in their air intakes to change the speed of airflow going into the engine. Then how about the F-16 and F-18 , do they have these things in there intakes when they go supersonic speeds?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2005, 06:11
by MikeMan
First let me say that Top Gun used to be one of my favorite movies of all time.

However that spin was one of the things that always bothered me about the movie.

The others were:

1. Final fight, how does maverick cover 180 miles to the dogfight in 60 seconds?
2. Why no radar guided missiles?
3. Why launch a single aircraft as backup?
4. Speed = life, so why slow down?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2005, 11:09
by DeepSpace
Bwadwey wrote:So since the Tomcat and the eagle have the things in their air intakes to change the speed of airflow going into the engine. Then how about the F-16 and F-18 , do they have these things in there intakes when they go supersonic speeds?


No, the F-16's intake doesn't have any moving parts. It slows down the air by its far installation from the aircrafts nose (about 4 meters), and separation from the body (note that there is a space between the intake and the aircraft itself).

About the intake of the F-18, I guess they used the same principle, because the F-18 came from the YF-17, which competed against the F-16 in the LWF program.

Top Gun

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2005, 04:58
by AIr-Strike31
Wow, first of all Just Wow'
The 80’s!
WOW! :shock:

Anyways, I have a question about Hollywood and real life Air combat,
Ill keep it simple though. I know that it’s not likely but what’s with that ejection in this movie, is it possible for the canopy to poses that kind of a problem?

THNX

RE: Top Gun

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2005, 10:28
by shiz302
Dunno how the tomcat works but if it's anything like the F-16 there is a lanyard connecting the canopy to the seat rockets. Directly or indirectly, and once the canopy has pulled far enough away, then the seat will eject. Kceject can prolly give you a better explanation.
Watch behind enemy lines, that shows it pretty well.

RE: Top Gun

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2005, 12:30
by Kosmos
Shiz302: You have to remember that Maverick say "Watch the canopy" just before they punch out... I guess Goose didn't watch the canopy ;)

Re: RE: Top Gun

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2005, 18:01
by shiz302
Kosmos wrote:Shiz302: You have to remember that Maverick say "Watch the canopy" just before they punch out... I guess Goose didn't watch the canopy ;)


Must have been a step in the tomcat ejection process, haha.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2005, 21:45
by Raptorman
The Raptor canopy is heavier on one side so when the pilot punches out it flips out of the way

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2005, 18:30
by Infinity16
MikeMan wrote:4. Speed = life, so why slow down?



Something similar to that move is actually taught in top gun. It’s been used once in air to air. I can’t remember the specific details but I think (THINK) that a single Phantom was engaged with a MiG-23. They were trading advantages very often until the guy in the F-4 did something similar while he was inverted. I’m sure it was not as glorious as “fly right by” but he did get kill. If anyone can give a little more info or even correct mine that would be great.

EDIT: I agree with you that Speed is VERY important and this was probably not the right time to pull that crap in Top Gun, but none the less it does exist.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2005, 20:16
by Kosmos
There is no way you can crash into your own canopy, not matter how hard you try. And even if you should make it somehow, the ACES seat is higher then my head/helmet (this goes for all seats that I have ever seen). So it would crash into (or through) the canopy, and protect my head (if needed).

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2005, 20:39
by falconfixer860261
Maybe that loose seat killed Goose. Ever watched how much the seats are moving when they are yankin and bankin? Maybe the USN sets their seats on vibration mounts to ease the impact of hitting the carrier deck..... :D

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2005, 04:07
by Raptorman
I think it was Igor from Eye of the Viper who went through the canopy in a T-38 because the matinence guy didnt secure the seat. He still flew it home though

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2005, 06:25
by LinkF16SimDude
KickURanus wrote:
MikeMan wrote:4. Speed = life, so why slow down?



Something similar to that move is actually taught in top gun. It’s been used once in air to air. I can’t remember the specific details but I think (THINK) that a single Phantom was engaged with a MiG-23. They were trading advantages very often until the guy in the F-4 did something similar while he was inverted. I’m sure it was not as glorious as “fly right by” but he did get kill. If anyone can give a little more info or even correct mine that would be great.

I believe you're thinking of Duke Cunningham's aerial dual with a MiG-17(maybe a MiG-19?). It ended up being a long series of vertical scissors. As Cunningham described it, at what seemed to be the right moment he unloaded to 0 G and popped some flaps out and the MiG scooted right by, followed soon after by a Sidewinder up the kazoo.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2005, 19:21
by Ultima
I listened to the commentary on the DVD version, and according to one of the people who had been a military advisor, the canopy thing was based on a real accident. Don't have the details handy though (getting ready to move).

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2005, 20:38
by Kosmos
Ultima: No matter what, you will NOT get killed from hitting the canopy. The seats are design like that... I checked the seat in a F-16 earlier this week, and the top of the seat was way above my helmet even on the ground. Furthermore I would get pushed even further down if I had to eject. Keep in mind that the whole thing is designed to go through the canopy in worst case.

There is actually a real story where a A-6 navigator (or what ever those guys are -not the pilot though!) was pushed halfway out through the canopy, and still made it home.

So you don't have to watch the canopy when you pull the handle :)

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2005, 21:13
by MKopack
I was also told a long time ago (Topgun timeframe) by a Tomcat crew that the incident in the movie was based on an actual event.

I agree that the top of an ejection seat does, in fact, protrude above the helmet level, although with an aircraft falling somewhat vertically and the canopy being blown off and in effect 'ascending' above you in relation to the aircraft, you could hit the canopy - and the canopy would not, in all likelyhood, be sitting in the same orientation as it was on the jet (it is blown off by rockets at the forward edge, so it would probably be tumbling). There is nothing directly above your helmet to protect it.

Just as a note, you can not eject through the canopy on the F-16, as you can on many Navy aircraft.

Mike

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2005, 21:55
by Kosmos
Mike: You have a good point here... Now this makes me wonder, if something goes wrong after pulling the handle, and the canopy dosn't blow off. According to our SUN guys (those guys in charge of our chutes, life support, and seats), the seat will stay in the aircraft. But let's say the seat still fires... Then what? My guess is that it will go through the canopy without any huge problems... I remember a few year ago when a bird came in through the canopy, the HUD, the helmet visor, and almost killed the pilot (he lost one of his eyes).

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2005, 04:55
by TC
If the canopy doesn't go in the Viper, the seat doesn't go. Now, if you can fight the more than likely out of control jet, get the canopy jettisoned, and then get the seat to go in time, you shouldn't have any problems! :D

BTW, the Eagle has a canopy breaker on the top of the seat. It'll go like a hot knife through butter through the canopy.

About the Top Gun ejection sequence: It was based on a flat spin mishap I believe at Pt. Mugu in 1979. Anyway, the canopy still had the short lanyard, and when it jettisoned, the crew reported that it seemed to float over their heads. This would have presented a danger had their seats not cleared.

They reported this, and the lanyards were extended to prevent this from happening again. Apparently, like the Viper, you can't go through the canopy in the Tomcat either.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2005, 20:04
by Kosmos
My question here is what if??? Seat dosn't fire if the canopy is there... Okay... We had a F-35 that fired it's weapons although the master-switch was off. We had a ship that fired a missile although all systems were off. So let's just asume for a moment that I sit strapped in, and the seat suddenly fires... Then what? My guess is that I will go through the canopy in one piece.

I guess I will have to ask the SUN guys next week!

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2005, 03:28
by TC
I'd have to ask you what type a/c you were in. In the Viper, the seat absolutely will not go if the canopy is there. The canopy jettisoning is actually part of the ejection sequence.

Now, if you were in the F-15, going through the canopy would not matter. The canopy breaker will go through the glass with no problem, and you will never come in contact with any broken glass.

You also go through the canopy in the A-6, Harrier, and F-35. The Harrier and 35 both have canopy strip explosives that shatter the canopy just before your seat goes.

The Phantom had this nifty canopy knife that you could break the canopy with. The Martin Baker Mk.H5 seat also had a canopy interdictor pin that makes sure the seat waits until the canopy goes. If that pin is not present during the ejection sequence, the seat assumes the canopy is gone, and the seat goes. I'm almost certain you can go through the canopy if necessary in the F-4.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2005, 04:44
by Cylon
I don't think I would like to "go through the canopy" in the Viper.... The Viper canopy (being one piece) is 4 times thicker than other fighter canopies.....

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2005, 21:58
by Kosmos
Cylon: No doubt it's thick.. But if a bird could go through the canopy, I still belive I could :)

TC: I spoke to our SUN guys today, and they say the same as you...

But (and in worst care scenario) I still believe I could go through the canopy if only the seat fires (and I didn't start the ejection).

Oh well... Soon I will leave this job, hopefulle fly a nice airliner somewhere -and not worry about ejection seats ;)

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2005, 02:03
by TC
Coming from a short stint with Eagles, I asked the Viper egress guys the same thing when I was an FNG in Viper Life Support. They explained to me that going through the canopy in the Viper is impossible during ejection, because the Viper's ejection sequence was designed with the canopy jettisoning as one of the necessary components needed to make the seat ejection initiate.

If all else fails, you'd have to jettison the canopy manually, and then initiate the sequence. Either way, not my idea of good times, you know? :wink:

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2005, 11:13
by MKopack
Kosmos wrote:Cylon: No doubt it's thick.. But if a bird could go through the canopy, I still belive I could :)


Well if the only qualification was physically going through the canopy then yes, you probably would. Unfortunatly, (as evidenced by some particulary nasty 'remains' that I've removed) the birds generally don't fair well in the process. I wouldn't think that someone strapped to a rocket powered seat would do much better.

I believe that when an ejection is iniatiated and the canopy does not 'go', that the procedure calls for attempting to manually jettison the canopy. If that fails, unlock and attempt to open the canopy (when the leading edge comes up the airflow should finish the job). I believe that there is an injury concern here as manually jettisoning or opening the canopy would place the pilots arm and hand in an 'unsafe position' (being away from his body, reaching for the handle) because if ejection has been iniatiated the seat will go as soon as the canopy lanyard is pulled.

Mike

RE: Top Gun movie - Jet wash/Flat spin

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2005, 08:34
by avon1944
Bwadwey wrote:In the scene when Maverick and Goose eject, what kind of problem were they in?


It was a flat spin Maverick had gottened in. When Iceman crossed Maverick's path the disturbance in airflow caused the right engine to quit.

An aircraft like a F-14, Mig.-29 or, Su-27 are more susceptible to this type of of problem. The aircraft with a designed with a "body effect" between the two engines has its engines far enough apart that a sudden loss of an engine (and other conditions being right), causes a loss of symetric thrust. This suposedly can cause the aircraft to spin around its center of gravity because the thrust from the remaining engine, will over power "rudder authority" and spin the aircraft.

Aircraft such as the F-4, F-15 or, F/A-18 have less problems this way for this particular type of problem, less leverage. A pilot can throw most any aircraft into a flat spin if they try.

Goose supposedly ejected into the canopy because the canopy when released floated upward instead of flying back as would happen in a large percentage of flights in which the pilot must eject.

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2005, 15:35
by Roscoe
Wow, lot's of bad poop in this thread. let me correct some of it.

1) The jet wash problem does not come from the air entering the engine too fast. The inlet will take care of that (more later). The issue is that the jet wash is turbulent and older engines want the air flowing straight into it (the newer ones are more robust). Here's why...the engine compressor blades are simply airfoils. Turbulent air approaches the fan face enters at a different angle than designed, causing the angle of attack of the "airfoils" to exceed the stall angle and now the blade no longer functions...i.e. it no longer compresses the air and raises the pressure. This is called a compressor stall. Also consider that when the air ignites in the combustor, the pressure also goes up. Now, if the pressure behind the fan is reduced, the high pressure air in the combustor now has less resistance to going forward. Pressure ratios in engines are finally tuned...a drastic reduction of pressure forward and the hot air in the cumbustor suddenly flows back forward through the fan rather than aft through the turbine. Loud bangs, bright lights...can be quite exciting. :shock:

2) Inlet design. Two types: subsonic and supersonic. A subsonic inlet has but one function...to smooth and straighten the air (see above). A supersonic inlet has one more function...to slow the speed of the air to subsonic speeds. This is done in two ways. The Viper has a normal shock inlet. In other words, a shock wave 90 degrees to the flow is created at or near the lip of the inlet. Supersonic air going through a normal shock becomes subsonic...but in a very harsh manner, much like slowing down your car by driving through a wall. Thus normal shocks are very inefficient in terms of energy loss AND are at their optimum at only one Mach number. Subsequently, they tend to limit the maximum speed of the aircraft. However, they have no moving parts so they require no maintenance so they can't fail (other than delamination etc..) and are cheap.

A more efficient method of slowing the air down are oblique shocks where the shock wave is at an angle to the air flow. Supersonic air flowing through an oblique shock will still exit supersonic but less so, therefore multiple shocks are required to get the speed down to near Mach 1. The last one is by definition is a normal shock (only way to actually make the flow subsonic) but by then the speed is so close to Mach 1 that the inefficiencies are negligible. The angle of these oblique shocks relative to the air flow change with Mach number so they require variable inlets like ramps (Eagle, Tomcat) or translating spikes (SR-71, F-104) to manage the shocks. These systems however are complex, heavy, require maintenance, and can fail in flight. They are also very sensitive to flight condition and can be disrupted by turbulent air (i.e. the famous SR-71 "unstarts"). Finally, can you say $$?

One last point. The inlet is separated from the fuselage not for supersonic reasons but to keep the boundary layer air (slower moving air due to friction with the fuselage) out of the engine.

(edited for minor typos and for clarification)

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2005, 15:42
by Roscoe
Kosmos wrote:Cylon: No doubt it's thick.. But if a bird could go through the canopy, I still belive I could :)


But a bird will only penetrate if hitting at 400 kts. The seat going up the rails is no where close to that speed when it reaches where the canopy would be. besides, the bird no longer resembles a bird post-penetration...

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2005, 17:19
by Guysmiley
The only thing that stuck with me about that scene was Val saying "Maverick's in a flat spin... headed out to sea." in an apparent attempt to explain how they'd get from the desert to the ocean. If you're in a flat spin the only place you're headed is down!

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2005, 03:58
by Roscoe
Yea, that's my favorite example of a hollywood screw-up as well. Drives my wife nuts...everytime we see something stupid in a movie, I blurt out that line...one time somebody overheard me who understood where I was going and laughed so hard he spit out his jujube...then I was ROTFLMAO! :lol:

RE: Top Gun movie - Jet wash/Flat spin

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2005, 04:22
by avon1944
Roscoe, thank you for your explaination! It was really complete.

BTW, "how does an aircraft in a flat spin travel out to sea.... or is a Tomcat in a flat spin travelling like a "frisbee" or UFO??"

Adrian

RE: Top Gun movie - Jet wash/Flat spin

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2005, 05:32
by Guysmiley
how does an aircraft in a flat spin travel out to sea....

Because that's what the script calls for. :D

RE: Top Gun movie - Jet wash/Flat spin

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2005, 05:58
by johnqhitman
Who knows, maybe its own inertia and wind carries it out to sea? Oh yeah, saw the blood running down his face, maybe died from plexiglass cuts?

Re: RE: Top Gun movie - Jet wash/Flat spin

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2005, 15:22
by Roscoe
avon1944 wrote:BTW, "how does an aircraft in a flat spin travel out to sea.... or is a Tomcat in a flat spin travelling like a "frisbee" or UFO??"

Adrian


Thats's the point...it can't. Initially, it will continue in whatever vector it had when it entered the spin. However, spins are high drag events and it will quickly succumb to gravity and the vector will be straight down.

Speaking of Top Gun...I love the mission where he "busts the hard deck" of 10K ft. During that flight they were playing chicken with the mountains. Last time I looked there were no peaks over 10K in the airspace around Miramar...

Great flying cinematography but the script blew...(I have to admit though I have the DVD although I was greatly disappointed in the quality of the transfer)

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2005, 15:42
by elp
What is funny about TG is that one of the tech advisor's ( a navy aviator ) said he never heard about a pilot "turning in his wings" so to speak.

Yet that is exactly what happened on a Kennedy cruise off of Lebanon in '83 after the C.O. of an F-14 squadron got the guys together after 2 mishaps and asked if anyone felt they didn't have what it took, do the right thing. Later there was one taker to that request.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2005, 04:38
by ATC
Anybody here ever done a flat spin in a jet? I've only done 'em in a Cap-10. Kind of fun. Better than inverted spins or outside snap rolls.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2005, 22:45
by Velvet
In a fully developed flat spin in the F-14 the pilot was at the end of the whip and would be experiencing 4.5-5.5g eyeballs out. If you didn't lock your harness before the g's built up you'd be munching on glare shield hoping your RIO could reach one of the ejection handles because it wasn't going to be you. Unfun.

It's funny. For such a technically terrible movie the spin scene was the only thing remotely based in reality. The TF-30's were stall prone pig's that were mounted 5 1/2 feet off of aircraft centerline. If one stalled while you were maneuvering, things got interesting very quick if you didn't quit maneuvering and regain control. If you didn't, by the time the jet had spun twice it was going flat and your controls didn't have the authority (no air over them) to stop it. The canopy would "float" above the falling (not Frisbee'ing) Tomcat, which was why the procedure for ejection would have the RIO jettison the canopy FIRST, and then initiate ejection. The theory being that this would give the extra second for the airstream to catch the canopy and get it out if the way. That canopy weighed hundreds of pounds..if you hit it...and a few RIO's paid with their lives to develop that procedure.

NATOPS and -1's are written in blood.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2005, 00:04
by TC
Interesting story Elp. I guess that he must've been asleep during Vietnam then, as there were quite a few pilots who turned in their wings, because they couldn't hack it.

One of the other fmr. TOPGUN instructors who speaks on the DVD commentary (Mike Galpin, IIRC), said that a guy did that during a cruise he was on. The guy came into his CO's office in the morning, and turned in his wings. He stated that the guy was on the COD and gone that afternoon.

Just curious...if a pilot does this, do they also grant him a resignation and Honorable Discharge, or do they transfer him to a desk assignment? I never knew any pilots that did this. I knew some who were RIF'ed, but none who turned in their wings.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Crash into the canopy

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2006, 04:32
by pezair
Kosmos wrote:There is no way you can crash into your own canopy, not matter how hard you try. And even if you should make it somehow, the ACES seat is higher then my head/helmet (this goes for all seats that I have ever seen). So it would crash into (or through) the canopy, and protect my head (if needed).


Actually it is possible to hit the canopy. In the movie the F14 enters a flat spin, which under the best of sercumstances is hard to recover from, even for experienced test pilots. It would have been harder for maverick to reach the ejection handles than for goose because the centrifical force is greater as you move away from the pivot point (centre of the aircraft). So Goose ejects first. In a flat spin there is no forward airspeed the aircraft is rotating horizontally and falling. This creates a low pressure zone over the top of the aircraft and when the canopy is blown, it hangs around in that pressure zone instead of catching a slip straem and thats how goose hit it.

RE: Crash into the canopy

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2006, 16:43
by Guysmiley
Pedantic correction: It's technically centripetal force Maverick is feeling, not centrifugal force. It depends on your frame of reference. From his it would be centripetal.

And Kosmos' point is that doesn't the ACES seat extend above the pilot's helmet? That (I'd think) would absorb some of the impact... But as others have pointed out this was something F-14s actually had happen (aside from the heading out to sea part :roll: )

Re: RE: Crash into the canopy

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2006, 17:19
by MKopack
Guysmiley wrote:And Kosmos' point is that doesn't the ACES seat extend above the pilot's helmet? That (I'd think) would absorb some of the impact...


The top of the ACES ejection seat does, in fact, protrude above the helmet level. But this may not provide complete protection to your head -the 'headrest' section of the seat is the highest part and there is nothing directly above your helmet to protect it (as opposed to some of the MB seats with the 'face curtain' seat iniatiators.)

At the same time the canopy would not, in all likelihood, be sitting in the same orientation as it was on the jet. It is blown off by rockets at the forward edge, so it would probably be tumbling. I had been told by people in the Tomcat community (back during the 'Top Gun' timeframe) that the movie scene was based upon an actual incident.

Mike

Re: RE: Crash into the canopy

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2006, 01:52
by TC
MKopack wrote:I had been told by people in the Tomcat community (back during the 'Top Gun' timeframe) that the movie scene was based upon an actual incident.


You are correct Mike. The scene was based partially on fact. Here is what I had posted a few months back on a previous page:

TC wrote:About the Top Gun ejection sequence: It was based on a flat spin mishap I believe at Pt. Mugu in 1979. Anyway, the canopy still had the short lanyard, and when it jettisoned, the crew reported that it seemed to float over their heads. This would have presented a danger had their seats not cleared.

They reported this, and the lanyards were extended to prevent this from happening again.


At the time Top Gun was released, the problem with the lanyard was already remedied. BTW, every now and again, one may view the video of the real life Tomcat ejection on one of those "World's Wildest Videos" or "Real TV" type shows.

Curiously, a few posters have mentioned the ACES II on this thread. The F-14 currently has the MB Mk.14 NACES seat. When Top Gun was filmed, it had the MB Mk. GRU-7A seat. Neither of these seats have canopy breakers, and the Tomcat's canopy is too thick to go through the glass. Also, when Maverick reached back, struggling to pull his face curtain handle, the inertia reels should have brought him back into the seat.

To Err is Human. To Forgive is NOT ACC Policy.

RE: Re: RE: Crash into the canopy

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2006, 02:50
by Velvet
TC
The F-14D had the NACES, the F-14A and B had the GRU-7. Doesn't matter, all gone now.
The change in lanyard didn't fix the problem. This is why the Out Of Control procedure ended with, "Jettison canopy, RIO-Command Eject". The canopy will come off by itself when you eject, but the manual jettison first would give it another second or two to clear the 'dead air' above the aircraft when the seats went up the rails.
Inertial reel's only fire when the ejection sequence starts. In a flat spin the 14's point of rotation was actually BEHIND the aircraft, so the pilot was at the end of an eyeballs out centrifuge to the tune of 5.5G's toward the nose when fully developed. The RIO, being not as far out on the end of the centrifuge, was experiencing less eyeball out G and had a better chance at getting to the handle. This is why the crew would also lock their inertial harness if the plane "departed". Still don't know why they weren't reaching for the "secondary" handle between their legs. I instinctively reach there when I'm in serious trouble.

Silly movie, but that scene was the only remotely realistic part of the movie.

Golf shirts under flight suits...wow. It's been a while.

The canopy

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2011, 03:59
by fangz007
Ok, alot of things in the movie top gun is fake, but the incident with the canopy could have actually happened. As he air around the f-14 produced the flat spin or jet wash, the canopy had no real separation from the aircraft which produced a kind of suction. If you take a piece of paper, lay it flat on the back of your hand and swiftly swat downward...the paper would follow your hand because of the air producing the suction with your hand...

Re: The canopy

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2012, 04:53
by huggy
fangz007 wrote:Ok, alot of things in the movie top gun is fake, but the incident with the canopy could have actually happened. As he air around the f-14 produced the flat spin or jet wash, the canopy had no real separation from the aircraft which produced a kind of suction. If you take a piece of paper, lay it flat on the back of your hand and swiftly swat downward...the paper would follow your hand because of the air producing the suction with your hand...


My F-14 buds are rolling on the floor!

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2012, 04:56
by razamanaz
The Top Gun ejection scenario is plausable as follows: the F-14 is in a flat spin and falling vertically. As such, there is minimal front to rear airflow as found in normal flight to help remove the canopy as it is jettisoned. This problem is further compounded by low pressure slipstream vortices above the forward fuselage created by the bottom to top airflow as the aircraft falls. Because the jet is "flat spinning" at high revolution, the canopy will also be spinning in the same direction when it is jettisoned but its spin rate will quickly de-synchronize from the aircraft due to the canopy having less weight and mass as it encounters lateral air resistance. Since the aft seat ejects first during an automatic dual ejection, the aft crew member would be the one most likely to impact it. Under normal ejection parameters, egress system sequencing time delays and seat/canopy interlocks are supposed to prevent seat/canopy collision; however, under adverse parameters it is possible. In the movie, Maverick would of course know this because he knew everything and thus he warned Goose to "watch the canopy" as they ejected.

This should not be a problem with F-16's due to (A) the canopy jettison rockets which help to remove the canopy and (B) the interlock lanyards which normally aren't fully extended until the canopy has rotated aft and away from the cockpit. Of course, if the canopy fails to jettison ballistically and cannot be manually unlocked/released by the pilot to clear the aircraft, built-in interlocks will mechanically prevent the seat from firing. This is an intentionally-designed feature since the ACES-II seat cannot penetrate the thick canopy transparancy.

(31 years egress systems experience)

Re: RE: Top Gun movie

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2013, 05:43
by viper992
shiz302 wrote:That spin makes about as much sense as goose hitting his head on the canopy too.



Actually, one of the biggest problems that the F-14 had was that it could enter a flat spin. The entire fuselage is thinner than a pancake, and flat spins were big problems with the plane and the old TF-34 engines. And, yes, there were many times when the canopy just hung there...and yes there were many times when RIOs--he was always shot off first--almost crashed into it. A few RIOs even broke legs and arms. So it is possible for that to happen.