Revealing mistake: When the co-pilot gets sucked out of the plane, it's obviously a dummy.
Airport 1975 (1974)
1 revealing mistake
Directed by: Jack Smight
Starring: Charlton Heston, George Kennedy, Karen Black, Efrem Zimbalist Jr.
Factual error: The scene in which the Beechcraft Baron hits the Boeing 747 in flight plumbs new depths in cinematic absurdity. Assuming both aircraft are at their normal cruising speeds - they appear to be - and the Beechcraft has half a fuel load left, it will hit with the same energy as 7,700 kgs of TNT. The Beechcraft Baron weighed 3,200 kg and the two aircraft would have a closing speed of something like 700 kmh. Even a glancing blow would tear the entire front half of the 747 to bits - there would be virtually nothing of the fuselage left intact all the way back to the wings, and the film shows the two aircraft on course for a head on collision.
Captain Stacy: I hear we expect a bumpy ride tonight.
Urias: I used to know a stewardess who thought that was sexy.
Captain Stacy: You're weird, you know that?
Question: Why is this movie called "Airport"? It is not really a sequel to the original Airport, as Patroni is the only character in both films. Further, the original Airport focused on airport operations. It gave us glimpses of various airport professionals and how they respond to challenges and controversies. That was its appeal. But beyond showing the mobile lounge at Dulles, and it doesn't even introduce us to the pilot, Airport 75 has nothing to do with any airport.
Answer: It's all about branding and marketing. The first Airport film was hugely successful, prompting a sequel. Reusing "Airport" in the title has built-in name recognition that people would immediately associate with the previous film, which helps sell tickets. The movie is part of what became a movie series (four in all) under the collective "Airport" name.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Suggested correction: What matters is how much of the small plane's kinetic energy was deposited in the 747's structure. A glancing blow would deliver less energy than a head-on collision, because it lessens the total time interval of the impact. Another important thing is if the small plane shattered or stayed largely in one piece during the collision. If it promptly shredded on impact, then each little fragment carried away its portion of the total energy. Smaller pieces of something as light as that plane would immediately get caught in the powerful airflow and be diverted around the 747.
Absolute rubbish. Airliners do not survive mid air collisions.