Terrorist Takeover Airport | Die Hard 2 

And that a former US Senator to boot

What if theres no other airport ;-;

One thing you missed..... So they can’t talk to the aircraft because all of their radios are blown up or the antenna are gone, whatever. BUT..... Every airport I have ever landed at had an aircraft on the ground. You walk over to one of those and use its radio. They all work on the ground just the same as in the air. Sure. Not as far, but in a crisis you talk to one and then that airborne plane talks to others. I’ve been in several message relays before. Simple. I don’t think these guys can get out of a shoebox with the lid off. I watched this movie before I became a pilot and then afterwards, now I just laugh at the stupidity of it all.

@@JeepersCreepers2013 and he ran for President a couple elections ago. He's died.

@@MrTarakan you’re the reason the power rangers shout their colors

Donut..

A la the "Big Bus"?

And it's mounted to the plane below the back window, just like on a Jeep, right?

And they always carry that huge tire wrench in the cargo hold to change tires.

You certainly don't want to get a flat tyre in mid air!

How about in four words? You can do a YIAY video with that one.

Actually it works but the correct way is to yell "TERRAIN! TERRAIN! PULL UP!"

Well he *had* torches with him (nearly burnt out)...

@@MrSantihomer sinkrate

“DON’T THINK! DON’T THINK!” “Why is it telling me not to think?” 😂

Exactly! Made perfect sense to ME!! LOL!

ohhhh sure... thats it haha

Hahahaha

The forth lever is for the APU.

Recycling cockpit interior sets. Aviation technical advisor asleep on the job?....then Hollywood needs experts like Captain Joe, Mentour or 74 Gear as tech advisors on these movies!!

I'm not a pilot of a major aircraft, but I would imagine the APU would be totally separate. At least, that's the way I've seen it in crash videos of aircraft.

A Boeing 747-400BCF only has seats in the top floor "hump." Also, typically not very many. The one's I flew only had six. So the whole aircraft only had seating and oxygen for 10 total.

He probably asked for that cargo plane because it's empty, could get a farther range, in order to fly to an unknown communist country.

@@RomelioSanz Not only that, but easier to "clear" . A passenger 747 is full of seats where some spec-ops guys could hide and ambush the mercenaries and/or take over the plane later. To clear an empty cargo plane, all the mercenaries had to do is make sure the cargo bay is empty and there's no suspicious boxes marked "The Orange" just lying around.

I bet they asked for a cargo version cause the film production had just one of those available :D

I thnik they ment a combi version. Once I flew on KLM.

movie logic /shrug

Hollywood, ANYTHING is possible. When is the last time you've seen anything that Hollywood produced that is 100% accurate? Never... It would not make an entertaining movie, The films that comes -->closer

Sully would have done better in that scenario. It's very possible he would have SEEN the flying Amoses prior to impact and avoided the dual engine loss....

Not just one goose. I’ve seen Sully’s plane...

The goose was moving relatively faster.

What a LUG NUT🤣🤣🤣🤣

We should calculate it. There's an idea - hollywood runways... is this one longer than Fast 6's?

Ayrshore the one from fast 6 was insane, the plane was taking off for a good five or ten minutes, must of covered about 20-30 miles 🤔

That's the Nurburgring of runways!

Maybe more believeable if it was at DEN, where you taxi forever!

@@lazergaming884 It must have done so, as well

wait... it WASN'T.... that is going to make my analysis a bit harsh.

😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣

Ever tried to light jet-A with a lighter?

@@stephenyoungblood3683 I can't say I have but it's on the to-do list

lol

Tower: Good luck, god bless, and may god have mercy on your soul. Pilot: aight imma head out

HISHE

Passengers: REEEEEWEWEEEE

Right? That was always one of my biggest pet peeves of this movie. Okay, you're not landing at Dulles. How about, oh, let's say DCA, BWI, PHL, RIC, or a dozen more airports in the area?

So, is that like 7500 for a tower?

No...It´s because they made a mockup plane for the ending wing fight...and it was cheaper and faster to make it without all of those windows a passenger plane would have...

russianbear54 in the original script, John surmises that with a 747 already stripped down for use as a cargo plane, and possibly lighter in weight, it could have flown a greater distance to some non extradition country.

​@@BritanniaPacific Also as others have pointed out it's way faster to check for counter terrorists, is the cargo bay empty? Yes, ok no counter terrorists!

Yup, the plane was an Evergreen 747-100 tail N473, I flew on it several times and the film company rented it for the movie, hangar scene and taxi. The wing scene was a mock up on a sound stage.

Yes, Indeed! Available and VERY CHEAP!!

everything in Oregon seems to be "Evergreen, (--------)" grew up in Oregon, left at age 13, never been back. Idaho now. Oregon, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington State, and now Idaho.

This was also a CIA or USAF mover.

Only know Evergreen as a cargo shipping line

@@nativeafroeurasian They did everything, cargo, passengers (charter), built helicopters, even farming.

@@Arctichamer thanks

No shit, Sherlock?!!

@@Prozrenie Yeah well, my 30+ likes compared to your "No shit, Sherlock" reply pretty much cancels out your cowardly rejoinder. Have a nice day and GFY!

@@Prozrenie oh oh...Clifford is all touchy,better give him a sweet...😒

Hence, why we're greeted with such treasure as, "Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow". No charge, no polarity.

Pretty much. The dude needs to familiarize himself with the concept of 'verisimilitude'. That bit is the least of Die Hard 2's problems.

Yes, would the kerosene actually burn like this? I once tried to set a wood pile on fire with diesel and couldn't get it to burn.

37°C seems low for a flashpoint?

@@Google_Does_Evil_Now I looked it up in my training notes. Dose seem low, I will check it out.

@@Google_Does_Evil_Now Hello again, looked it up and 37-38 is JET’s flash point. Don’t forget that’s just “FLASH POINT” not it’s “IGNITION TEMPERATURE”.

@@GERfusion thank you for the clarification. I incorrectly assumed they were the same thing. I found this "The key difference between flash point and auto ignition temperature is that flash point determines the lowest temperature at which vapour of a material starts ignition in the presence of an ignition source whereas auto ignition temperature is the lowest temperature at which a material can start ignition spontaneously. Moreover, another significant difference between flash point and auto ignition temperature is that flash point requires external ignition sources while auto ignition temperature does not require external ignition sources. Also, pressure has no effect on flash point whereas increment of pressure decreases the atuo ignition temperature. "

Thanks Osama, glad you liked them 👍

The one true thing in ‘Airplane’ is, don’t eat the fish!!

Surely you can't be serious...

KelsonArwhi Me, too!

"I'm dead serious, and my name isn't Shirley"

I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue

Skyhawk _452 Wow I wasn’t sure how strange that line is! It implies more is happening, but “Good Luck” is probably enough courtesy!

@@bliz78obrien1 He unkeys the microphone (the 'clunk' you hear) before saying "God bless" to himself.

Actually, this has almost happened near Paris, a few months ago, while landing with the ILS inoperative. From the AeroTime article: "A flight with 172 passengers came within 6 feet (1.8 meters) of hitting the ground while on approach to Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG), according to a report by French investigators. The Airbus A320, registration 9H-EMU and operated by wet lease specialist Airhub, was coming in to land at CDG on a flight from Stockholm Arlanda at approximately 11:40 UTC on May 23, 2022 when the near-collision occurred due to an incorrect altimeter setting. The controller twice gave the crew an incorrect QNH setting of 1011, instead of 1001, with the mistake also not being spotted by the crew, and as a result the approach was flown 280 feet lower than it should have been." What's even more disturbing: "On the second approach for landing, the faulty QNH setting was not corrected, and the aircraft was again 280 ft lower than it should have been.". So, while aviation is becoming safer and safer, there are still a lot of holes in the cheese. Many of the large passanger aircraft have outdated avionics, that can even be inferior to those used by the small GA aircraft, in terms of available features. But, as I said, things are improving. Maybe in 30 more years the scenario from this movie will actually become impossible for the commercial fleets. Unfortunately, at the moment, it is still possible. In conclusion, don't blame the script writers too much, while they got a lot of things wrong, but this part was actually plausible, if we ignore a few details.

@@VladimirNicolici holy shit, I always thought the premise behind this movie was bull shit, but the idea that aircraft could crash like that is at lest semi plausible is absurd O____o

Yes. This

Yes!!

ok Ben, I will check out that movie and see how I could do it Ben, thanks for that Ben.

74 Gear oh that would be amazing! Keep up the wonderful work. Your channel is amazing!

Airport 75! Do it!

Sergiu C 🤣🤣🤣

Surprising the onboard ground terrain radar, on the aircraft for that explicit purpose and in all planes at that time, didn't signal the "Terrain, pull up!" warning. Also, who was watching the altimeter?

Joel Ellis it wasn’t in the script. That it the plane forgot to say its lines.

"oh frick the guys modded the ground to be too high"

Um yeah, don't planes have their own altimeters?

those are some good ideas Nicholas, I will save them into my video ideas for the future some of those were recommended to me recently on IG too... thank you!

@@74gear Cold and dark startups that aren't done in flight sims are very rare on RU-vid, I think providing one with steady details would be much appreciated.

Did you already look up the videos on how to break into the airport property and disable the security cameras? Lol

xlxcrossxlx hahahahaha I saw this and thought this dudes trynna steal a plane.

well I have been to some airports with some super long taxi plans but ya that was a bit extreme. Well I am glad you liked it Randy thanks for watching.

must be the same runway from the fast and furious 6

I *knew* this 74 guy was a fake, Bruce Willis would never lie to us! XD

It's this sort of forward planning that keeps us all safe in the air.

Well played. I had a good laugh at that.

Yea i noticed that as well but it is kinda typical for hollywood movies, more important problem here is the fact that the fuel used in this type of engines is not as flamable as they are showing here, that fuel would not burn so easy in that temperature not to mention this whole part when its burning so volatile that the flame can catch up plane that is moving with take off speed... and in the end why the plane exploded, there was no oxygen in the tank/fuel to create this explosion. That is why i think the "nice line of fuel on the ground" is not an error in comparision to all the completly wrong behaviour of the jet fuel(and it is spraying like water because it is water...). Jet fuel is more flamable than diesel fuel but less flamable than normal gasoline in temperature below freezing of water i can bet that you can put burning match in it and it will gonna just extinguish the flame on your match...

Or like Captain Hard Landing.

@@Likeusb1 or We Too Low

crash johnson

or Stuka-Hans

@@1crzflyer captain Wi Tu Lo

Drapes Matonge maclean? You mean McClane?

... and he somehow had enough time to strap in. Those grenades had seriously long Hollywood timers - he'd been better off just throwing them back out the window!

@@TheOriginalNCDV Actually only one grenade was armed I think, the last one, but the fuse was still very long

Jan Šilha Possibly, although I doubt one grenade would set off the others...except in Hollywood of course! They could have also shot him on the way down, but I guess that would end the movie...

O'Brien MUST SUFFER!!!

Thomas Durant from Hell on Wheels.

he got chiefly o'blown up

Also the head terrorist is also playing Luther Sloan from Section 31 on Star Trek DS9

Of course, it's well known....

Or the multitude of backup radios and portables the tower, TRACON and Center would have...

Or what Bruce DID have.

Not Bruce, the tower could have teamed up with the Police to go to a plane parked on the ground and used one of their radios...problem solved

Even easier still they said that three of the aircraft had earphones why not use the iPhone and ask why don’t those aircraft to put a message out to all the other aircraft in the air that way not even having to risk going to an aircraft on the ground

andrew stokes what iPhone existed in 1990?

that's a GREAT shout!

And he did!

Not even a private pilot, a student pilot who had never even soloed before

Bitcoin Motorist nowadays it would be someone that played a lot of MS flight simulator

Bernardo H. Thank you. Both for paraphrasing the comment I was going to make, and for knowing the truth. Basically diesel fuel. Not "flammable", but "flameable". Huge difference!!! I constantly cringe when people act like "jet A" is like some volatile super unstable liquid. It is fairly difficult to get burning compared to gasoline or "aviation fuel". Lol

Wouldn’t the jet wash blow out the flame if it somehow lit? Very unrealistic.

@@seanriley1603 that's as good as an analogy as any. But, lest we forget, it's a movie!!! Lol Lol

Russell Mooneyham I know. I have a hard time seeing airplane disaster movies. I also know the E&E bay in a 747 isn’t big enough for a crew of commandos. A truck wouldn’t get stuck on the landing gear of a plane. A back seater of a F14 wouldn’t hit the canopy during ejection, killing him and causing Tom Cruise to cry. However, I do think a creature could land on the wing during a flight and start tearing it apart. It could happen!!

@@seanriley1603 Lmao!!!! I got to Thank you profusely! I've been having a "rare week" (even though I'm old, disabled and retired). I needed a top shelf belly laugh. You have provided this! Lol! Thanks again!!!! Rock on!!

Right! If Washington Dulles is so NUTS, I'll try Baltimore (BWI)! And DO keep in touch!

And they only did that to provide a reason for the hand-to-hand fighting on the wing rather than just have someone stand in the doorway and take McClane out with bullets.

Excuse me, stewardess. I speak jive.

Brilliant movie. One excellent 'in-joke' for that film: The plane is a jet, yet every external shot has prop plane sound effects. It's an homage to the source material.

A jet engine with turbo prop sounds, love all the exterior scenes that show this.

Unfortunately, Airplane! is no longer as funny as it used to be. There were a lot of comic mechanisms that Airplane! invented, and they have since been plagiarized by other comedies to the extent that they're hackneyed now instead of funny. It only happens to the very best movies.

@@danwiebe7146 "Airplane! is no longer as funny as it used to be." Surely you can't be serious??!!

Miles must suffer :)

Its on the list for this year Jon, I have to watch it again and see how to make it work.

74 Gear The original Airport is great. Also, the less great Airport ‘79 Concorde is on STARZ at the moment if you have that

is it true that when they were low on fuel they just asked Dean Martin to breath into the fuel tanks ?

@@74gear and if possible also the other Airport movie, where the 747 ditches and sink under water... That was the first disaster movie I saw as a young boy in theaters and I remember it scared me a lot

Well, they had a CRT touch-screen monitor that could be manipulated with a magic pen so... maybe that gave directives to a robot to go dig the hole lickety-split? The robot scene obviously got left on the cutting room floor to save time for more fighting on the airplane wing. Same with the scene where they stopped the plane to quickly swap out the engine with a human body stuck in it.

Just read your comment.....Congratulations on getting your PPL.....😊

Yes, but not quite as long as in Fast and Furious 6.

*fast and furious 6 intensifies*

i beleive that hollowood claims its, just a tab under 10 miles long and a 6k taxi

Most commercial runways ARE miles long

9000 feet

Yeah they called the other planes on the "old system" why didn't they tell the other planes without that system? 🙄

It's physically located in Virginia yes but the mailing address is in the the District of Columbia.

Dulles International Airport, Address 1 Saarinen Cir, Dulles, VA 20166

5. Why did the tires make a noise? The same way the General Lee would screech it's tires on a gravel road. It was Hollywood back in the day.

😂 exactly Genevieve!

Yeah, if they really wanted a cargo plane, why did it have to be a conversion?

Also, that was quite possibly, among the longest taxis in history, bested only by the Fast and Furious (forgot which one)

And for a "cargo conversion" airplane, that's alot of passenger seats left in that cabin. Just sayin'...

That's like asking for a 747SP, I can imagine that request might take a while

The airplane was just starting down the runway, maybe 50kts, not fast enough for them to notice weird aerodynamics

The director like to do a shout out to Finland when he can. Notice in Cliffhanger that the design on one of the parachutes is a Finnish flag.

You can really hear Sibelius's dramatic love for his country in that particular passage from Finlandia: one proud Finnish person (Harlin) tapping into the pride of another! Yes!!

Jason Martin How did the flight go?

Wayne Sibley it was brilliant, I have no fear of flying anymore. And I had a terrible fear of flying. I never used to sleep the night before because of worrying and more I looked on RU-vid the more disaster flights I saw. But I’m completely over it now.

@@Jm09085 That's amazing! Well done!

And no 747 has a main flight door over the wing, just disposable-window emergency hatches.

That’s not a C-130, it’s the fuselage of a C-123 Provider with fake wings & 4 jet fake jet engines rather than the two radials the real 123 had. But you are correct-no ejection seats on transports, only combat types. The other thing about that scene was all those grenades waiting such a looooong time for Bruce to strap into that non-existent ejection seat before exploding.

Another thing that was wrong was that was a zero -zero ejection seat. That means zero forward velocity and zero altitude. Those were not invented till well after that aircraft was built.

@@brinsonharris9816 yeah those grenades take a solid 20 seconds 🤣

I wondered about that myself. Jacket stuck in the wing mechanisms, no go. But a human body in the engine? We good there, continue as planned.

Makes two of us I really miss the ol' L-1011. There's nothing else quite like it.

It really depends on the aircraft and the crosswind component that it is rated for. Ice, which does present an additional hazard, is more of a problem during taxi.

@@TommyTom21 no shit sherlock ;)

Maybe not "Catastrophic Failure" but you certainly don't want to continue using that engine due to the RISK of eventual catastrophic failure.

@@TommyTom21 there is a difference between having to take an engine apart to prevent, assess and repair damage Vs the damage something does. In other words when we know a foreign object has entered an engine, you won't let that engine start until you have removed that object/those objects. If a body gets sucked in, the engine may continue running fine, but you would certainly want to take the engine off and inspect it. - it happens. The last time I know of someone going down an engine intake, they released the photos to the industry of the damage it did to various components. Mainly small openings blocked with flesh and engine fragments. Wouldn't want to be the ones to take that engine off or apart. It smells bad enough when a seagull gets sucked in, let alone a human.

@@underwaterdick a human into an engine would be catastrophic, a goose cause catastrophic damage

@@1littlelee catastrophic damage and catastrophic failure are not the same thing. I have witnessed solid objects being ingested into running jet engines and the engine continues to function, ok, it's only until someone shuts it down from the cockpit, but it continued running nonetheless. I have also seen the aftermath of bird strikes where the pilots continued to use the engine after the strike, only shutting it down because T&Ps indicated a problem or vibration went out of allowed limits. Not because of "Catastrophic failure". It's an overused term, and yes, I am sure that it would occur eventually after ingesting a human, but it might not be immediate.

Can't wait for die hard 6

I can imagine a car leaking fuel when parked, and exploding if the leaked fuel catches fire. A car moving, however, will not catch fire because the drops of gasoline will be so far apart, the fire will have no continuous line of fuel to follow to the car. Now if it were a PLANE taking off, the idea of a line of burning fuel catching up to a plane up in the air would be ridiculous. That effect looks like a flamethrower on the ground pointing at and engulfing the wing. It doesn't look like a line of spilled jet fuel lit up, burning, and catching up with a plane on takeoff! That probably happens in the Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons.

I think jet fuel will ignite, but it's not gasoline. Even if it were then the engines' exhaust would slow it enough so it wouldn't make it to the wing. The trouble with knowing this is it ruins the plot line .

Floridamike is correct , infact aviation fuel is more like diesel than petrol ! An aircraft engineer i worked with said he used to run his old diesel van on left over aviation fuel that they'ed drained out of aircraft . you can throw a lighter or a match into a puddle of aviation fuel and it won't burn it has to be a vapour

@@jompy151 Also jet fuel will have to be above 30 degrees Centigrade before it atomizes enough to start burning, and it burns at a fairly slow rate. If you made a line with it and got it lit you could outrun the approaching flames.

@@JJSmith1100 Plus the fuel trench is comically narrow and strait. If you go just from their imaginary fuel dump setup, the pipe that was shown was out the side aircraft between dozens to hundreds of feet up and seemed to have a lot of variability on how far it was coming out, so even if it were avgas it seems unlikely would not have made a consistent enough line to burn the entire length on the ground.

My first thought when he said he was going to review this film. God knows, there were times I wish those damn things DID have ejection seats!