I saw the movie Top Gun Maverick today. My review

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
15,823
Location
Virginia Beach
So what was Tom doing in that start sequence where he had to wait for the gauge to hit a certain number? I just figured that Iran did whatever it could to keep them flying and the original factory parts were no longer made so they might have made some of their own parts for various systems so it'd be a slightly different variant of the plane like an F14A vs F14D. But I guess for a short flight like that, it doesn't really matter.
Starting the F-14A (with TF-30s, as shown in the movie) required both ground electric power (115V 3 phase AC and 28V DC) and compressed air. The TF-30 engine starter is an air turbine (common in most aircraft) but the airplane itself didn't have an APU to provide either electric power or pneumatic air.

The number hitting a gauge was the ground power unit building up the requisite 30 PSI for the pneumatic start.

This site has a great deal of detailed information on the airplane, if you would like more details.

 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
15,823
Location
Virginia Beach
Not the same plane but... Wowzers


Supermaneuverability - the ability to fly at 90 AOA, to turn with thrust only, to fly well beyond stall, has been around for a long time in fighters.

The SU-27 was the first to demonstrate it at an airshow, though the Swedish Saab Draken pilots used it (just like Maverick did in the first movie as a "hit the brakes" maneuver) as much as 50 years ago.


When you see the adversary aircraft maneuver post-stall, using thrust vector, and crazy high AOA to stop and pivot in one spot, seemingly in defiance of aerodynamics, you're seeing supermaneuverability - and a realistic representation of it.

That's one plot element I really liked - the constant thread of "You will get killed going up against 5th generation fighters" because, basically, it's true.

Of course, the 5th generation pilots haven't ever flown against Maverick...so...
 

schwinney

Thread starter
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
3,906
Supermaneuverability - the ability to fly at 90 AOA, to turn with thrust only, to fly well beyond stall, has been around for a long time in fighters.

The SU-27 was the first to demonstrate it at an airshow, though the Swedish Saab Draken pilots used it (just like Maverick did in the first movie as a "hit the brakes" maneuver) as much as 50 years ago.


When you see the adversary aircraft maneuver post-stall, using thrust vector, and crazy high AOA to stop and pivot in one spot, seemingly in defiance of aerodynamics, you're seeing supermaneuverability - and a realistic representation of it.

That's one plot element I really liked - the constant thread of "You will get killed going up against 5th generation fighters" because, basically, it's true.

Of course, the 5th generation pilots haven't ever flown against Maverick...so...

"It's the pilot.. not the plane!"

*Maverick thinking*
*Hard roll right*
 

CKN

Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
9,104
Location
Utah
I thought the movie was badly written, badly acted and the plot was stolen from star wars. Maverick is also an anime superhero that is completely incapable of taking damage.

But that's just me.

So what your saying is that it is basically escapism. BTW-that's exactly why the movie is so successful.
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,471
Location
MA
Starting the F-14A (with TF-30s, as shown in the movie) required both ground electric power (115V 3 phase AC and 28V DC) and compressed air. The TF-30 engine starter is an air turbine (common in most aircraft) but the airplane itself didn't have an APU to provide either electric power or pneumatic air.

The number hitting a gauge was the ground power unit building up the requisite 30 PSI for the pneumatic start.

This site has a great deal of detailed information on the airplane, if you would like more details.

Thanks for the link.

Any idea on the hand signals between the planes? That bit was funny.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
15,823
Location
Virginia Beach
Thanks for the link.

Any idea on the hand signals between the planes? That bit was funny.
Hand signals in the USN (and most of NATO) are pretty standardized.

Tap your helmet earpiece followed by a thumbs down means "Radio down, can't receive".

He uses that hand signal, as a way to say, "my radio isn't working" as a stalling tactic. Doesn't work, but it's an actual hand signal.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
21,268
Location
Silicon Valley
Fun to watch the special effects, but sort of predictable plot and not much surprises. I'd rate it a B (80%) personally just because of the plot.

Outside of Tom Cruise and Jennifer Cornelley, none of the characters are memorable. Didn't pay for the movie (company event) so I can't complain much, was really more of a work team building and networking before and after thing, and free popcorns.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
21,268
Location
Silicon Valley
Well they never really say it, but the only country with F14s is Iran and I don't think they have 5th gen fighters yet, but I guess it's a movie and maybe it happens somehow in the future. Plus with a specific gps coordinate, can't you fire a lot of cruise missiles, regular missiles or whatever to hit the target? Some of them would get through the SAM guarding it. But yeah, check your brain at the door and enjoy those flying sequences.
To be honest I think the whole thing should be done with drones, you can afford to lose a lot of drones taking out the SAMs (or deplete their weapons) and jammers before you send in the real deal to hit the target.

The original general who said drone is the future is probably correct.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,471
Location
MA
To be honest I think the whole thing should be done with drones, you can afford to lose a lot of drones taking out the SAMs (or deplete their weapons) and jammers before you send in the real deal to hit the target.

The original general who said drone is the future is probably correct.
Probably railgun from space. But there's some treaty that bans weapons in space. Maybe when it expires or countries pull out of it. But the counter measures are just to put the facility deeper into the ground. I think after the last attack they say the newest one is even deeper in the ground and maybe safe from even bunker busters. They did fire a bunch of missiles to take out the runway. There were only so many SAM missiles.
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,721
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
To be honest I think the whole thing should be done with drones, you can afford to lose a lot of drones taking out the SAMs (or deplete their weapons) and jammers before you send in the real deal to hit the target.

The original general who said drone is the future is probably correct.

General?

Seriously though, that reminds me of a radio host I heard talking about a fellow host who was from Lemoore, California. He said something in the line of "there's an Air Force base in town". Really?
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
21,268
Location
Silicon Valley
General?

Seriously though, that reminds me of a radio host I heard talking about a fellow host who was from Lemoore, California. He said something in the line of "there's an Air Force base in town". Really?
Sorry I think it was the 'admiral' (as in Navy). The guy who visited the base when they took off the hypersonic.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2017
Messages
1,652
Location
Southwest CA, USA
Fun to watch the special effects, but sort of predictable plot and not much surprises. I'd rate it a B (80%) personally just because of the plot.

Outside of Tom Cruise and Jennifer Cornelley, none of the characters are memorable. Didn't pay for the movie (company event) so I can't complain much, was really more of a work team building and networking before and after thing, and free popcorns.
Agreed. The first one had much more talent and more memorable because of it. TG2 is good because of the 1st
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,721
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Agreed. The first one had much more talent and more memorable because of it. TG2 is good because of the 1st

The problem is that the original just had such a horrible script and (although many of the actors were good) a huge amount of overacting. Almost nothing was subtle about the original Top Gun.

And the best thing was that the sequel filmed the actors in flight, where it's apparent how difficult it is to do anything while fighting off G forces. Drone pilots don't need to worry about that. And other movies (including the original Top Gun) show it like they're driving a sports car that's making shaking the pilots around a little bit.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2017
Messages
1,652
Location
Southwest CA, USA
I wouldn’t say horrible. Could have used some proof reading. Ex/ Why wouldn’t Maverick be allowed into the academy because his dad was a pilot? Was this kind of brought up again in part 2 with Goose’s kid? Maybe someone didn’t want Maverick to put his life at risk also? Viper? They never explained it.
 

schwinney

Thread starter
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
3,906
You mean two people don't normally eject from a plane, land without a scratch and then just manage to run over to a nearby airfield and steal a plane without hundreds of people on the ground looking for them?

Well the first thing you get is a "suit slap" for being so dang-ol' crazy to land your jet and come looking for me.. this movie was clearly written for teenagers AT PARTS.
 

schwinney

Thread starter
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Messages
3,906
Thanks for the link.

Any idea on the hand signals between the planes? That bit was funny.
Hand signals in the USN (and most of NATO) are pretty standardized.

Tap your helmet earpiece followed by a thumbs down means "Radio down, can't receive".

He uses that hand signal, as a way to say, "my radio isn't working" as a stalling tactic. Doesn't work, but it's an actual hand signal.

You must be referencing the F-14 part. :)

So, Tom said that to the unnamed country's 5th Gen (they kind of moved like robots to me, the 5th gen fighters pilots, I wonder if that was intentional.) What did unnamed country's pilots say upon initial contact, then the second time?

I think @Wolf359 is correct here, that was good for a laugh, "I have no idea what that means" lol.

Some here are giving the movie an 80.. I can see that, I was on my phone discreetly checking messages during the BORING character building and I did not see nor particularly care for the 1st, I saw two scenes....... so maybe it is the same movie... but the movie as a whole was superb, I'll see it one more time with company (I also saw it for free. Thanks Applebees. First smart promotion I have seen in some time. I saved 10 or 12 bucks) so I'll stick with my 95%, which to me is the max enjoyment you can get from it. Fighter pilots and Navy surely enjoy it MUCH more, hence all the discussion. I've obviously been neither. :)

I did leave early, dont need to see an extended outro. and still not a huge Lady Gaga fan. (Ending sequence. Left after the music started)
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,471
Location
MA
You must be referencing the F-14 part. :)

So, Tom said that to the unnamed country's 5th Gen (they kind of moved like robots to me, the 5th gen fighters pilots, I wonder if that was intentional.) What did unnamed country's pilots say upon initial contact, then the second time?

I think @Wolf359 is correct here, that was good for a laugh, "I have no idea what that means" lol.
Yeah the only country that has F14's is Iran and they never sold the ones they had to any other country. And countries that have 5th gen fighters already have nukes so it doesn't matter if they have an enrichment facility. So yeah, lots of fiction in there but some of is accurate I guess. When the US sold F14's to Iran, they didn't have tailhooks so Tom had to crash on the carrier. Astro14, how was the landing? He also said one of the engines was out too which makes it even harder.
 
Top