As one who has over 40 years in aerospace defence I'm fascinated by XP as a means of re-creating history. I'm currently about 200 hours into the development of one of the RAF BCATP flying training airfields in Canada, 1944, where dad laid the groundwork as a Lancaster pilot. The possibilities for such simulation are literally endless and I find this so much more rewarding than letting your flight computer pilot a boring airliner.
Another clue you have is look at the deck parking.. In the movie, the tomcat is launched from a bow cat.. you can see the bridle catchers on the front of the carrier as the aircraft departs the bow cats.. At 2:24 if you look at the bow cats, they've both got aircraft parked on them.. in fact, there is only waist catapult that's in any configuration to launch aircraft..
@@WarrenPostma Same here - but I will admit, he totally ruined "Top Gun: Maverick" for me because he analysed the trailers and when I watched the movie, I ended up seeing all the flaws, i.e. the reflection on the visor of the back seat of the pilot when the likes of Maverick was supposed to be in a single seat F/A-18. But, I found the story to be really weak anyway and the insubordination of the junior pilots pissed me off. However, the aerial shots were phenomenal.
From a position point of view, the smoke trails would be the give-away. And Austin caught those. I never had to scrutinize the movie *that* hard. I guess I always assumed that his lineup was ok for outboard waist catapult, although I'm not sure if Tomcats were launched off that one. We did have a jet flight student perform this maneuver after a cat shot off the carrier in a TA-4J. The movie was a little newer back in those days. Everyone was briefed that there would be no aerobatics around the ship. The admiral who was briefing us was the Chief of Naval Air Training. He personally had the guy attrited from the training program. "If I can't trust him in a training environment, how can I trust him if he's my wingman in combat?" Just one of the many ways the movie differed from real life.
Yeah, the director was appealing to the masses to make Mav look cool. After one time of "buzzing" the tower in the real military the subsequent "ass-chewing" would be accompanied by a couple of weeks of non-flying duty. After a second FU (buzzing the tower or acro on t/o) the aviator would most likely be posted to a non-flying billet for a couple of years . . . talk about breaking up the movie's continuity!
Feels like the blame towards the spoilers is entirely misdirected. The aircraft wouldn't be able to produce enough lift in a roll or inverted at those speeds even if it had ailerons. If anything killing lift with spoilers would be more effective at rolling the aircraft at lower speeds than the slow airflow over the ailerons(MU-2 for example), but only when the airfoil itself is actually producing lift, which the Tomcat won't do much at low speeds inverted.
I knew this because I watched the Tomcast where the pilots who flew the planes in the movie said this. And I didnt need to watch this ridiculous RUclips to learn it. Second... The D model F-14 did not use burner on the Catapult because the engines were too powerful. In the movie Top Gun, they had the A model F-14 with it's weak engines and thus needed to use afterburner despite the possibility of a compressor stall.
Contrails are formed when hot exhaust condenses and forms a visible white trail, typically at altitudes 30K+. What you're calling contrails are actually wing tip vortices. This is the low pressure of the upper wing causing moisture to condense (basically creating a cloud) and in most aircraft is most pronounced at the wing tips. It always happens, but is most visible in humid conditions (rare to see in the desert) when at high angle of attack (TO/Ldg). If you really want to roll after takeoff strip those wing tanks and get rid of the missiles. Reducing weight will give similar advantages as increasing speed.
The wing tip vortices do not create a trail. As you said, it's the condensation caused by the decrease in pressure and temperature that creates the trail. So it's the definition of a condensation trail (contrail).
Something else. If you notice, he appears to be launching straight off the bow of the carrier. But in the roll, the bow of the carrier is packed with aircraft. So, he sure didn't launch from THAT bow! Regardless, a pretty awesome segment. :)
Doing a roll with the gear still extended is not going to help help. Austin nearly made it on the second attempt with the gear fully extended. Maybe, retract the gear right after the launch and then initiate the roll as soon as the gear is up and you might avoid dipping in the ocean.
If you pay close attention to the cat launch its off the starboard cat on the bow. When the roll is performed you will notice a number of aircraft park on the bow.
Yes it's possible. Top Gun does not lie. Moreover in this film it is an F14-A. Please focus on the development of the simulator. and please stop looking for that poor f14 that Heatblur has sublimated. Given the state of the Xp12, I'm not ready to give up my Xp11.
You can edit these aircraft and add any weapons you want to them. XPlane is a wonderful place for building and modding things. You can dogfight in XPlane but it's not as immersive or accurate for weapons systems as DCS. Let DCS be DCS. I personally enjoy using XPlane to fly military aircraft over target practice scenery areas and "shoot stuff" on the ground.
DCS is known as "Digital Cockpit Simulator", everything that is happening outside the cockpit is awfully simplified. From the bombs to missiles and especially ground units. There is no "Combat" in the DCS, as you are almost literally just destroying as dangerous objects as cardboard boxes. Heck, DCS maps don't even have a earth curvature, everything is flat, why you can't use DCS to even perform basic navigations as navigation requires to have curved earth or you get misalignment in coordinates and timings even for dead reckoning navigation. What comes to DCS flight modeling, if you read the ED own white paper of the F-16CM used for explaining it, it becomes very obvious that they have fixed flight modeling and they just combine the data to get it do what the real EM charts say, but there is no dynamics in them. The wind is steady and limited to four altitudes, 10 meters, 500 meters, 2000 meters and 8000 meters. Even if you input a 60 ft/s turbulence, you don't get the planes react to the wind properly. Try and take a lightweight plane like Yak-52 for the landing as in some real videos is done with Cessna 172, and it is smooth sailing in DCS, requiring almost no inputs at all. DCS does great (in most aircraft) in cockpit simulation. But some are even very inaccurate with very horrible way once you learn how the real things really work. DCS does lot of things better than anything in the military aviation simulator, but it is not so great when you start to dig in deeper to it.
Your conclusions are possible, but I suspect they may have done that from a launch from Cat #4 (note steam billowing out it still). I launched from Cat 4 and completed the roll successfully.
now i wonder how many times you had to take the shot in the sim not because of the flying skills but to catch a break from cloud flickering and pixelation. jokes aside, guys, please do something about it
At high AoA you can use rudders to roll. Those are much more effective at high AoA than ailerons or whatever. Don't forget to turn off CAS before maneuvers because CAS dampens everything too much.
Austin, you don't need to defend x-plane in such vids... We X-Planers are already loyal to x-plane, trust the science behind the experience in the sim, and we know x-plane is the real deal. Most users are real worlders anyway. I wish I'd discovered x-plane sooner. But your vids are plenty informative, if a little corny, which information we want, thereby reinforcing the confidence in x-plane and Laminar. So yeah, I say relax the format and lean more towards just straight info, and less assertions that the sim is technically correct. Again thanks for all you and Laminar do, and happy holidays.
hey Austin I get where you're coming from. but you're wrong. Not only is it possible to re-create that exact shot but I can do it consistently. ruclips.net/video/0GqTYA2jSmY/видео.html What you're failing to do is neutralize the elevator when the roll is inverted. You're still pulling positive g's so of course you are going to go into the water. . Austin your a great pilot and a great programmer, but I can recommend a good aerobatics instructor for you. :-) I am the biggest X plane geek on the planet. But if you really want to test your simulator against real-world physics (or complete lack thereof in the case of Rob Hollands flying) try re-creating one of Rob Hollands aerobatic displays,! or any top-level 3D aerobatics pilot. ruclips.net/video/eReCLqcueNc/видео.html
No he didn't!… He waited until he had much higher AOA, and then he almost lost it all with the roll. And he has trailing edge ailerons and not spoiler. Just as Austin described.
Not true! Sorry Austin, but the only xplane 12 did prove is that you need to work on your roll technique with a fighter. ruclips.net/video/z492HZgfNKU/видео.html
Наука
The aviation equivalent of Bill Nye the science guy!
So a F-14 can identify as a Mig-29? Cause Bill Nye says girls can be boys and boys can be girls.
I was thinking the same thing 😅
I love Austin's teaching us about aviation
As one who has over 40 years in aerospace defence I'm fascinated by XP as a means of re-creating history.
I'm currently about 200 hours into the development of one of the RAF BCATP flying training airfields in Canada, 1944, where dad laid the groundwork as a Lancaster pilot. The possibilities for such simulation are literally endless and I find this so much more rewarding than letting your flight computer pilot a boring airliner.
I love that he added himself as a model in the sim
**runs in**
TOMCATS!
**runs back out**
Another clue you have is look at the deck parking.. In the movie, the tomcat is launched from a bow cat.. you can see the bridle catchers on the front of the carrier as the aircraft departs the bow cats.. At 2:24 if you look at the bow cats, they've both got aircraft parked on them.. in fact, there is only waist catapult that's in any configuration to launch aircraft..
Austin Meyer as a pilot in-game that's awesome God Bless you Austin
I find it hilarious that he has his own model in that Tomcat 🤣
Great balls of Meyer
Austin's awesome. I'm surprised C. W. Lemoine (Mover) didn't pick this up in one of his "Mover Ruins Movies".
I love Mover's channel.
@@WarrenPostma Same here - but I will admit, he totally ruined "Top Gun: Maverick" for me because he analysed the trailers and when I watched the movie, I ended up seeing all the flaws, i.e. the reflection on the visor of the back seat of the pilot when the likes of Maverick was supposed to be in a single seat F/A-18. But, I found the story to be really weak anyway and the insubordination of the junior pilots pissed me off. However, the aerial shots were phenomenal.
I love how the F-14 pilot is austin himself 😂
This is probably the closest thing we will ever get to an Austin Meyer shitpost and I am so here for it.
I love Austin's enthusiasm and knowledge! And also he is entertaining
As always Austin. Extremely informative. Love your work !
From a position point of view, the smoke trails would be the give-away. And Austin caught those. I never had to scrutinize the movie *that* hard. I guess I always assumed that his lineup was ok for outboard waist catapult, although I'm not sure if Tomcats were launched off that one. We did have a jet flight student perform this maneuver after a cat shot off the carrier in a TA-4J. The movie was a little newer back in those days. Everyone was briefed that there would be no aerobatics around the ship. The admiral who was briefing us was the Chief of Naval Air Training. He personally had the guy attrited from the training program. "If I can't trust him in a training environment, how can I trust him if he's my wingman in combat?" Just one of the many ways the movie differed from real life.
Yeah, the director was appealing to the masses to make Mav look cool. After one time of "buzzing" the tower in the real military the subsequent "ass-chewing" would be accompanied by a couple of weeks of non-flying duty. After a second FU (buzzing the tower or acro on t/o) the aviator would most likely be posted to a non-flying billet for a couple of years . . . talk about breaking up the movie's continuity!
Feels like the blame towards the spoilers is entirely misdirected. The aircraft wouldn't be able to produce enough lift in a roll or inverted at those speeds even if it had ailerons. If anything killing lift with spoilers would be more effective at rolling the aircraft at lower speeds than the slow airflow over the ailerons(MU-2 for example), but only when the airfoil itself is actually producing lift, which the Tomcat won't do much at low speeds inverted.
that version of the f-14 cannot take off with full afterburner on the cat
Ok, now do the moon landing! There's no WAY that actually happened!!! 😉😂😉😂😉😂😉😂
Nice debrief of the film, hats off to Austin😄
I’m blew laugh because Austin reaction 😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You'd get a lot further if when you were inverted you'd push on the stick.
Hilarious and informative. Great work.
I knew this because I watched the Tomcast where the pilots who flew the planes in the movie said this. And I didnt need to watch this ridiculous RUclips to learn it.
Second... The D model F-14 did not use burner on the Catapult because the engines were too powerful. In the movie Top Gun, they had the A model F-14 with it's weak engines and thus needed to use afterburner despite the possibility of a compressor stall.
flight (film) 2012 with Denzel Washington.
Austin: Hold my beer
Ah, THAT´s what X-Plane was programmed for. :)
Contrails are formed when hot exhaust condenses and forms a visible white trail, typically at altitudes 30K+. What you're calling contrails are actually wing tip vortices. This is the low pressure of the upper wing causing moisture to condense (basically creating a cloud) and in most aircraft is most pronounced at the wing tips. It always happens, but is most visible in humid conditions (rare to see in the desert) when at high angle of attack (TO/Ldg). If you really want to roll after takeoff strip those wing tanks and get rid of the missiles. Reducing weight will give similar advantages as increasing speed.
The wing tip vortices do not create a trail. As you said, it's the condensation caused by the decrease in pressure and temperature that creates the trail. So it's the definition of a condensation trail (contrail).
Something else. If you notice, he appears to be launching straight off the bow of the carrier. But in the roll, the bow of the carrier is packed with aircraft. So, he sure didn't launch from THAT bow! Regardless, a pretty awesome segment. :)
Austin? You *ROCK,* maaan!
Doing a roll with the gear still extended is not going to help help. Austin nearly made it on the second attempt with the gear fully extended. Maybe, retract the gear right after the launch and then initiate the roll as soon as the gear is up and you might avoid dipping in the ocean.
That's the movies....lol.... Thanks Austin. Love your Videos...makes learning fun!
So how long must one wait after launch before attempting such a roll? What is the minimum speed one should attempt such a roll in the F-14A?
it is F14 D in X-Plane
If you pay close attention to the cat launch its off the starboard cat on the bow. When the roll is performed you will notice a number of aircraft park on the bow.
Please do a part 2 on top gun - especially F-14 doing cobra maneuvers/splitting the throttles
It was a Hollywood movie. In western movies, they've even faked train crashes. 🤪
But very cool info. Thank you, Austin.
Hot take: It's a Hollywood movie, dude. What did you expect?
Yes it's possible. Top Gun does not lie. Moreover in this film it is an F14-A. Please focus on the development of the simulator. and please stop looking for that poor f14 that Heatblur has sublimated. Given the state of the Xp12, I'm not ready to give up my Xp11.
I can't complain about Google Assistant now after hearing how X-Plane is pronounced, it just sounds more like explain than X-Plane xd.
That is really nice but wish the VOR nav worked in the glass panel of the C-172.
Hey Austin ! How about adding Missiles and really making these fighter jets shoot and kill like in DCS ,and also add sonic booms like in DCS ?
they do
You can edit these aircraft and add any weapons you want to them. XPlane is a wonderful place for building and modding things. You can dogfight in XPlane but it's not as immersive or accurate for weapons systems as DCS. Let DCS be DCS. I personally enjoy using XPlane to fly military aircraft over target practice scenery areas and "shoot stuff" on the ground.
Thankyou for the Entertainment.
It was also educational.
If you need mil aviation and flight physics, you need DCS
DCS is known as "Digital Cockpit Simulator", everything that is happening outside the cockpit is awfully simplified. From the bombs to missiles and especially ground units. There is no "Combat" in the DCS, as you are almost literally just destroying as dangerous objects as cardboard boxes. Heck, DCS maps don't even have a earth curvature, everything is flat, why you can't use DCS to even perform basic navigations as navigation requires to have curved earth or you get misalignment in coordinates and timings even for dead reckoning navigation.
What comes to DCS flight modeling, if you read the ED own white paper of the F-16CM used for explaining it, it becomes very obvious that they have fixed flight modeling and they just combine the data to get it do what the real EM charts say, but there is no dynamics in them. The wind is steady and limited to four altitudes, 10 meters, 500 meters, 2000 meters and 8000 meters. Even if you input a 60 ft/s turbulence, you don't get the planes react to the wind properly. Try and take a lightweight plane like Yak-52 for the landing as in some real videos is done with Cessna 172, and it is smooth sailing in DCS, requiring almost no inputs at all.
DCS does great (in most aircraft) in cockpit simulation. But some are even very inaccurate with very horrible way once you learn how the real things really work.
DCS does lot of things better than anything in the military aviation simulator, but it is not so great when you start to dig in deeper to it.
Yes the tomcat video I asked for! Thank you!!! 😊
they didnt even give us data on the darkstar, makes it so hard for me to remake it in xp12. but still, nice movie
ALSO WHENS YOUT NEXT UPLOAD AUSTIN
For some reason Austin remind me of the Annoying Orange cartoons on YT!🤣
It's like a grown up version that is less annoying. I can see that.
Dale Snodgrass would be able to pull that off. In fact I’ve seen him do it :)
Np offense but I think you could work on your roll technique. When you become inverted you have to push on the stick to maintain the asset you’re on
2:52 ....... Movie people be damned ! 🤣 WE have X-Plane !
We just need SPEED, THE NEED FOR SPEED ! ( sorry , other movie )
100% genius, 100% dork.
Your gear was down. Also sweep the winds back and it may have worked after the shot
how long would that take? by then the aircraft would be up to some speed, esp with afterburners...
Not under 250 KIAS it wouldnt
I think that they did the roll without pulling the stick
This is the first thing I tried in the beta and I crashed
You need to shoot from Waist Cat #4 like the jet in the movie
Dude this is amazing hahahaha
Did you add the f-14 because of top gun?😏
Austin just missed a trick at the end there by not doing that said Top Gun roll manoeuvrer.
Excellent! 👍👍
Your conclusions are possible, but I suspect they may have done that from a launch from Cat #4 (note steam billowing out it still). I launched from Cat 4 and completed the roll successfully.
The pattern was full 😜
How dare he
now i wonder how many times you had to take the shot in the sim not because of the flying skills but to catch a break from cloud flickering and pixelation.
jokes aside, guys, please do something about it
I love these videos
Who woulda thought a movie isn't real🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Excellent.
Ok, you win!
This is great
At high AoA you can use rudders to roll. Those are much more effective at high AoA than ailerons or whatever. Don't forget to turn off CAS before maneuvers because CAS dampens everything too much.
But Austin you missed one really important thing. He's a really good pilot! Are you a really good pilot as well?
Excellent 😅
dude. You crack me up.
Awesome!
Keep it up!
Ok, so we learned action movies are not real.
Haha you got a new sub!
Loved it so
he is one of a kind . thats a fact
Thank you!
Austin, you don't need to defend x-plane in such vids... We X-Planers are already loyal to x-plane, trust the science behind the experience in the sim, and we know x-plane is the real deal. Most users are real worlders anyway. I wish I'd discovered x-plane sooner. But your vids are plenty informative, if a little corny, which information we want, thereby reinforcing the confidence in x-plane and Laminar. So yeah, I say relax the format and lean more towards just straight info, and less assertions that the sim is technically correct.
Again thanks for all you and Laminar do, and happy holidays.
MOVIE!!! Movies lie all of the time!
lol, keep them coming!
Thankyou
hey Austin I get where you're coming from. but you're wrong. Not only is it possible to re-create that exact shot but I can do it consistently.
ruclips.net/video/0GqTYA2jSmY/видео.html
What you're failing to do is neutralize the elevator when the roll is inverted. You're still pulling positive g's so of course you are going to go into the water. . Austin your a great pilot and a great programmer, but I can recommend a good aerobatics instructor for you. :-) I am the biggest X plane geek on the planet.
But if you really want to test your simulator against real-world physics (or complete lack thereof in the case of Rob Hollands flying) try re-creating one of Rob Hollands aerobatic displays,! or any top-level 3D aerobatics pilot.
ruclips.net/video/eReCLqcueNc/видео.html
yep
lol "low pass"
😂😂😂
Come on now boys and girls Top Gun is make believe it's just a Hollywood movie Tom Cruise is not a real jet pilot
🤣🤣🤣
Neeeeeeerrrrrrdddd lol
OMG what xD
Dcs players left the chat
Lol, they lied.....ofcourse, .....never let the thruth stand in the way of a good story....it is american, duh!
Such a dork. lol
Austin did you try MSFS? 40th anniversary edition this week. You must pumped!
No, no, that's illegal
I don't think he cares about MSFS since X-Plane's aim is pilot education and experimenting aerodynamics
The old Saab 37 Viggen did it, direct after takeoff! ruclips.net/video/0aJGZyiDMbw/видео.html
No he didn't!… He waited until he had much higher AOA, and then he almost lost it all with the roll. And he has trailing edge ailerons and not spoiler. Just as Austin described.
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄
uhm what, the pilot gained altitude and did a roll with stick pushback, also your F14D model is so unrealistic it hurts me
L❤
Not true! Sorry Austin, but the only xplane 12 did prove is that you need to work on your roll technique with a fighter. ruclips.net/video/z492HZgfNKU/видео.html
This guy can talk about flight model and thinks his flight model is the greatest of all time but he cant make anti alising any better😂
You probably aim at US viewers only. Otherwise you wouldnt scream like this. 20 seconds..... is enough.
😂😂