The Making of "Top Gun: Maverick"

[Palmpilot]

‘Top Gun: Maverick’ studio paid U.S Navy more than $11,000 an hour for fighter jet rides—but Tom Cruise wasn’t allowed to touch the controls

A Pentagon regulation bars non-military personnel from controlling a Defense Department asset other than small arms in training scenarios.

fortune.com

The U.S. Navy lent Tom Cruise F/A-18 Super Hornets for the new “Top Gun” movie. The only catches: The studio paid as much as $11,374 an hour to use the advanced fighter planes — and Cruise couldn’t touch the controls.

The “Mission Impossible” star, famous for performing his own stunts, insisted that all the actors portraying pilots on the long-delayed “Top Gun: Maverick” film fly in one of the fighter jets built by Boeing Co. so they could understand what it feels like to be a pilot operating under the strain of immense gravitational forces. Cruise, 59, had also flown in a jet for the original “Top Gun,” a smash hit in 1986.

Cruise ended up flying more than a dozen sorties for the new movie, but a Pentagon regulation bars non-military personnel from controlling a Defense Department asset other than small arms in training scenarios, according to Glen Roberts, the chief of the Pentagon’s entertainment media office. Instead, the actors rode behind F/A-18 pilots after completing required training on how to eject from the plane in an emergency and how to survive at sea....​

 

[SkyDog58]

See, this is why I prefer Star Wars. I am certain that Harrison Ford actually flew the Millennium Falcon. He’s not the wannabe that Tom is.

 

[Cap'n Ron]

If I was getting in a plane with one of those two at the controls, it would damn well be Cruise. Ford's flying history scares me too much.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's understandable.

 

[Brian]

I'd be happy to go for a flight with Harrison Ford.

 

[James Clark]

Fun show, I like all airplane movies and today found us at the theater to see it. Great recruiting movie for the Navy.

 

[SkyDog58]

Why I would choose Ford over Cruise.
You can have the P-51 and the jets.

 

[Cap'n Ron]

Fun show, I like all airplane movies and today found us at the theater to see it. Great recruiting movie for the Navy.

Just like the first one.

 

[Cap'n Ron]

I'd be happy to go for a flight with Harrison Ford.

Only if I am seated at a control station.

 

[Cap'n Ron]

You can have the P-51 and the jets.

I'll take them.

 

[Scrabo]

I won’t be paying money to see TG2, Sorry but I don’t want any of my $$ going to Scientology

 

[MRC01]

I saw the first and liked it. I saw the second and liked it even more.
Of course to enjoy it you have to ignore whatever you already know about aviation or the military. It's not realistic, but it's 2 hours of action-packed fun and excitement.

 

[Cap'n Ron]

I've only seen the first so far, and I saw a whole lot of comedy, but I didn't see much excitement. I'm expecting about the same from TG2. 'Course, having BTDT, and knowing what will "fly" and what won't, I'm a bit prejudiced. As I said about TG1, when about 15 minutes in they got to that line from the squadron commander about "I don't believe I'm doing this," I leaned over to Fran and said, "Neither do I."

 

[multisync]

I am based in San Diego and we had the Navy advisor for the new film at our local pilot's association meeting last Fall. He said the plot for TG2 is much more realistic than TG1 (which he said was pure fantasy). He said when they showed the film at Miramar Air Station there was continuous laughter. He also said that all of the flying scenes were actually flown in TG2 whereas TG1 was done on sets with green screens. He said Tom Cruise flew into the film location in his P-51 expecting to do the F-18 flying. The response was "No way. You are sitting in the back and don't touch the controls."

He said that the scene where the roof blows off the shack actually happened but was unplanned. He heard about it moments after it occurred and was quite concerned because a number of the film crew were directly under the path of the jet. The jet was flying under 20 feet directly over their heads and he thought the chances of them being injured from the shock wave was very high. But there were no injuries.

 

[SkyDog58]

When is it due out on Netflix?

 

[Pugs]

He said Tom Cruise flew into the film location in his P-51 expecting to do the F-18 flying. The response was "No way. You are sitting in the back and don't touch the controls."

I don't think any of the Super Hornets (E/F/G) have flight controls in the back seat. They're dedicated to mission gear for the WSO. Unlike the "B" Hornet that did have a stick and throttles.

 

[Dacker]

Back in the 80's when I was in college as a mechanical engineering student "The Right Stuff" blew me away and really lit the fire to be a military pilot. "Top Gun" came out and it was like throwing gasoline on the fire! Luckily for me, the Navy needed pilots at the time and I got in. I was happy to have the opportunity and was ready to fly anything the Navy had. I wound up flying helicopters for ten years and was glad I did as it fit my personality more. Anyone that knows me knows that I am about as far from Type A as you can get. Plus, I found that I had a 120 knot mind, not a 480 knot mind, so helicopters fit me well!
Watching TG2 was a hoot. Not much of it grounded in reality but very entertaining. Just like TG1, it was "Hollywooded" for the sake of entertainment. That is OK with me. I would definitely watch it again!

 

[MRC01]

At one point in TG2 they talk about a mission speed of 660 kts. As a non-military pilot that stuck in my mind because it's just about exactly the speed of sound at sea level standard conditions. Why would anyone fly at that speed? I would think they would want to be slower, or faster, but not actually at, mach 1.0.

 

[Cap'n Ron]

I don't think any of the Super Hornets (E/F/G) have flight controls in the back seat. They're dedicated to mission gear for the WSO. Unlike the "B" Hornet that did have a stick and throttles.

That's certainly one way to keep Cruise's hands off the stick and throttles. And that's consistent with the Navy's history of not giving tactical jet NFO's (BN or RIO) a set of controls -- a choice which cost them several airframes and maybe a few lives. There was one case of an A-6 BN flying the jet out of Route Pack VI by reaching across (a real long body-bending reach -- I've done it briefly) to get hold of the stick and getting them feet-wet before using his ejection seat safety pin lanyard to pull the pilot's ejection handle and then ejecting himself. It's a heck of a story and earned the BN the Navy Cross. Of course, the F/A-18B was primarily intended a trainer for the A/C models, which is why they had controls in the back 'pit. Only the Marines had the D-model, which they used to replace the A-6 as an all-weather attack aircraft with an NFO in the back seat, but I don't know whether they had flight controls in the back. BTW, the E-models don't even have a back seat -- only the B/D/F/G's.

OTOH, there have been several saves of USAF two-seat fighters involving the WSO flying the jet in a pinch, particularly an Idaho ANG RF-4C which took a bird strike in the quarter panel of the windshield, disabling the pilot, but the WSO flew the jet home and landed it. Probably saved the pilot as well as the jet, as the pilot would not have been likely to survive ejection (which could be initiated for both by the WSO), parachute landing, and overnight exposure plus blood loss before being scarfed up by SAR. And I can tell you I (and my wife) felt a whole lot better in the RF-4 and F-111 knowing if anything happened to the pilot, I could get us both home.

 

[Cap'n Ron]

At one point in TG2 they talk about a mission speed of 660 kts. As a non-military pilot that stuck in my mind because it's just about exactly the speed of sound at sea level standard conditions. Why would anyone fly at that speed? I would think they would want to be slower, or faster, but not actually at, mach 1.0.

Because it's divisible by 60 -- makes navigation and planning a lot easier. In the A-6 we planned 420 or 480 for combat (and 360 for training to save gas). In the F-4, and F-111D/E it was 480 normal and 510 (still a relatively easy-to-compute) 8.5 nm/min) across the target area. The F-111F's with their significantly bigger engines used 540 IP-TGT -- because they could. That said, you wouldn't plan 660 unless you could sustain that without afterburner, which the Super Hornets' significantly more powerful engines (in comparison the A-D models) might well be able to do. Note that the F-22 with its monster F119 engines (almost as much with one engine without burner as two F-4 engines in max blower) can "supercruise" -- reach and sustain supersonic flight without using the fuel-guzzling after burners.