Accelerometer Thread
Ah yes, but then the pilot at some point is going to pull back on the flight controls and your stomach is going to slam into the top of your skull. lol
When the pilot pulls BACK on the yoke my stomach will crush my n&t$. Unless i perform the Heimlich maneuver in time. But I know what you mean, the Tomcat is my all time favorite fighter jet
I've sat in one when it was pulling plenty of G's. And Immelmans, and barrel rolls, and afterburner-fueled screams at the top of my lungs. Best ride ever. And yes, when they hit the afterburner, you WILL feel yourself pushed into the seat, regardless of the initial IAS. I don't remember if the 14 will go supersonic without afterburners (I believe it will), but when he shot the moon from about 20 ft off the deck and didn't stop until we were 30k ft above the planet, I didn't really care anymore.
haha! I'm sure you could do better with the GT if you had traction! .84 / .87 is marginal is it not?
I just assumed that the track app would retain its best possible times and hold onto those numbers unless they got better later on? I dunno
And he did it with a V6, so what's your excuse? 
Although if I look at the numbers.... and this seems like "the bridge to nowhere".. thanks Sara Palin, you effin idiot.
0.84g = 8.24 m/s/s hmmmm...
So 100km/h = 62mph =27.7 m/s so theoretically 0-62 would be achieved in 27.7/8.24 = 3.36s. Therefore the results are implausible unless we consider the theory that the Track Apps use MAX of the absolute value of acceleration collected over time. Which makes them pretty useless.
The end.
oh, and this isn't meant to say that the Track Apps are doomed, but to make them useful it would take a bit more software engineering effort to design them to average the data points along with some peak filtering to eliminate outliers in the data.
Although if I look at the numbers.... and this seems like "the bridge to nowhere".. thanks Sara Palin, you effin idiot.
0.84g = 8.24 m/s/s hmmmm...
So 100km/h = 62mph =27.7 m/s so theoretically 0-62 would be achieved in 27.7/8.24 = 3.36s. Therefore the results are implausible unless we consider the theory that the Track Apps use MAX of the absolute value of acceleration collected over time. Which makes them pretty useless.
The end.

oh, and this isn't meant to say that the Track Apps are doomed, but to make them useful it would take a bit more software engineering effort to design them to average the data points along with some peak filtering to eliminate outliers in the data.
Also the math is right but after the initial jump the g meter drops off. The same in the turns
I've sat in one when it was pulling plenty of G's. And Immelmans, and barrel rolls, and afterburner-fueled screams at the top of my lungs. Best ride ever. And yes, when they hit the afterburner, you WILL feel yourself pushed into the seat, regardless of the initial IAS. I don't remember if the 14 will go supersonic without afterburners (I believe it will), but when he shot the moon from about 20 ft off the deck and didn't stop until we were 30k ft above the planet, I didn't really care anymore.

The Tomcat's major advantage is it can sustain supersonic flight at sea level. Most other fighters can only do in thinner air higher up. It does need afterburners (Zone 3 or 4) to go above Mach 1, the only fighter I know of that can do it without afterburners is the Raptor.
It would be cool if track apps would show max (like right now) as well as highest sustained average which of course would be filtered and averaged over 50 or so 20ms cycles.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rando
2010-2014 Mustang
8
Aug 25, 2021 11:12 AM
austin101385
'10-14 Shelby Mustangs
3
Oct 2, 2015 01:00 PM





