Laws broken in Top Gun: Maverick

Pay attention to the end…

Hangman fires a missile, destroying the Mig. He is then shown to have four missiles still onboard…. Hmmm…

Oxygen and radio connectors are also different between the F-18 and F14…

Hangman's Super Hornet is also loaded to the max, which wouldn't necessarily make all that much sense if he's just there providing cover. But yeah they had a few continuity errors.
 
The biggest error in TG Maverick was the engines…

The only exported model of the F14 had TF30 engines, notorious for compressor stalls.

Only a few US versions had the upgraded F100 engine…

The TF30 killed quite a few aviators who were either unaware or forgot the different flight characteristics between the two…

 
Next they are going to go after him for transporting illegal substances over international borders in the movie American Made. (Also a good movie.)
 
The biggest error in TG Maverick was the engines…

The only exported model of the F14 had TF30 engines, notorious for compressor stalls.

Only a few US versions had the upgraded F100 engine…

The TF30 killed quite a few aviators who were either unaware or forgot the different flight characteristics between the two…

Kara Hultgreen was killed by pilot error. Straight up. We’ve talked about this.


The TF-30 didn’t kill aviators as much as it wrecked airplanes when aviators lost control of the jet following a stall. I have had dozens of compressor stalls - didn’t lose control of the jet. Splitting the throttles in the F-14A would get you a stall. If you would like to know more about the engines, or the jet, I recommend this thread.


Look, ejecting at Mach 10 would turn you into a blob of jelly, so, clearly, we are willing to suspend disbelief for a good story.

And that’s what were a nitpicking, a movie that told a good story.

So, stop worrying over technical details, I sure didn’t worry over them when watching this, and I promise you that I know more of the technical details than anyone else on this forum.
 
Look, ejecting at Mach 10 would turn you into a blob of jelly, so, clearly, we are willing to suspend disbelief for a good story.

And that’s what were a nitpicking, a movie that told a good story.

So, stop worrying over technical details, I sure didn’t worry over them when watching this, and I promise you that I know more of the technical details than anyone else on this forum.

That was basically the Space Shuttle Columbia breaking up. That would be impossible to survive unless someone was Kryptonian.

I suppose movie makers go to their technical advisers and try to find what can be accurate while still being interesting. I’ve heard the depiction of the cruise missiles and the E-2 communications were fairly accurate while still being interesting. Especially the “picture clean” communication. I always wondered why the original Top Gun didn’t show an E-2 being used.
 
Wonder if they realize it’s just a movie…
I am amazed that people believe movies are a source of education realism or fact. That is why I say Tv watchers are the most dumbed down people on the planet.. They believe their Tvs. Tv and movies are pretty much mindless entertainment.
 
So you guys are saying, the people that died in making of the movie aren't really dead ?. Now you ruined the whole movie for me.,,,

Someone did die during the filming of the original Top Gun. It was a pilot carrying the cameras filming the aerial scenes.

TopGun-ArtScholl-Screen.jpg
 
They were specifically referring to the movie.

My understanding is that realistic military aviation movies tend to be boring to no end.

I suppose what the public wants is a missile that follows a plane for 45 seconds like the scene from Behind Enemy Lines.
You're likely right - but I need to see the (Intruder) movie. My tastes tend to out-of-sync, and I suspect I wouldn't find it boring.

There's probably a reason why W.E.B. Griffin's books, which make good reading in part because of the focus on the minutiae of military protocol, have not been made into movies
 
You're likely right - but I need to see the (Intruder) movie. My tastes tend to out-of-sync, and I suspect I wouldn't find it boring.

There's probably a reason why W.E.B. Griffin's books, which make good reading in part because of the focus on the minutiae of military protocol, have not been made into movies

From my engineering background I can easily geek out on the details of any fiction that might get into stuff I know well. But it would easily go over the heads of most people, who wouldn't be interested.

The biggest criticism that most military pilots seem to have over movies like Top Gun: Maverick is that they're always flying in tight formation like they're the Blue Angels. It seems like a wingman being a mile away is more likely than flying in a tight wingtip formation, since they don't want to have their concentration on avoiding the next plane. I know that doesn't look very good on a movie screen when planes are miles apart.
 
legal eagle is backed by the party, his office is the middle of the swamp. he's no different than media matters as far as I'm concerned.
 
From my engineering background I can easily geek out on the details of any fiction that might get into stuff I know well. But it would easily go over the heads of most people, who wouldn't be interested.

The biggest criticism that most military pilots seem to have over movies like Top Gun: Maverick is that they're always flying in tight formation like they're the Blue Angels. It seems like a wingman being a mile away is more likely than flying in a tight wingtip formation, since they don't want to have their concentration on avoiding the next plane. I know that doesn't look very good on a movie screen when planes are miles apart.
I’ve been told by several Naval Aviators that an Airforce formation is two aircraft flying the Same direction on the Same day on the same continent.
The Airforce pilot agreed that the Naval Airforce was the toughest branch! He said he once tried to force air through a naval! Couldn’t do It! He said it took a Real BlowHard to force air through a Naval!
 
Back
Top