The Worst Aviation Movie of All Time

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
I would add all of the "Airport" movies to the candidates' list!



I think the first was pretty good, they got progressively worse with each
sequel.



That is usually how sequels go,,,, down

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

wrote in news:935q03dtlh7h3m3l5fkdo9b2glcvoh1g37
@4ax.com:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

snip
Is that the same one where they talk about "the cone of silence" ?

Wasn't til years later when I actually learned what that meant...

Can't remember that bit, bu tthe cone of silence they're talking about
is 4 way range, of course, not VOR..


Berti e

Yup.

I learned about four-course navigation in the "classic" manner-using
diagrams on a cocktail napkin and lots of airplane/hand motions-from
an old-timer that had done it...


Yeah. I had to do an exam on them in canada, where they were in use 'til
the 80's. I remember seeing an article about the last one in the US
being decommisioned in and around 1979... The cone was significant,
because it was the only way you knew you had passed the station. If you
missed it, you could fly an outbound QDR for miles before you realised
it and then you had no time for your station passage.. It was considered
wise to fly slightly to one side of the beam so either the A or N was
stronger so if oyu missed the cone you knew from the swappover in signal
strength as you flew into the opposite beam..

Bertie

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:iU5Ph.7220$J21.5802@trndny03...
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:19:27 GMT, John Theune
wrote:

Another one had Nicolas Cage as a prisoner being transported on a
plane.
The plane was basically a flying prison with steel floors, stairs, etc.
It
must have had atomic engines to power that thing off the ground.

That was Con-Air and the plane was a C130 and if you can fit it into a
C130 it will take off. The payload is between 36,000 and 42,000 pounds.

No, it was a C-123. Two recip engines.

http://tinyurl.com/yq424v

Ron Wanttaja
Your right Ron, that's what I get for using a error prone carbon based
memory system instead of a silicon based one. At least I googled to get
the useful load figures.

Does that mean that Ron has a silicon based memory system???

Now a plywood based one, I'd believe...

Ken Finney wrote:
"John Theune" wrote in message
news:iU5Ph.7220$J21.5802@trndny03...
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:19:27 GMT, John Theune
wrote:

Another one had Nicolas Cage as a prisoner being transported on a
plane.
The plane was basically a flying prison with steel floors, stairs, etc.
It
must have had atomic engines to power that thing off the ground.

That was Con-Air and the plane was a C130 and if you can fit it into a
C130 it will take off. The payload is between 36,000 and 42,000 pounds.
No, it was a C-123. Two recip engines.

http://tinyurl.com/yq424v

Ron Wanttaja
Your right Ron, that's what I get for using a error prone carbon based
memory system instead of a silicon based one. At least I googled to get
the useful load figures.

Does that mean that Ron has a silicon based memory system???

Now a plywood based one, I'd believe...



No it means I tried to recall the a/c type from my memory instead of
looking it up online I think Ron's smart enough to verify his
recollection before he posts it

John

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Ok, I didn't realize that's what you meant happened. That's bad.


I should have said they were working well above the water level in the calm
harbor.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Ok, I didn't realize that's what you meant happened. That's bad.


I should have said they were working well above the water level in the calm
harbor.

Yeah, I missed that part. Why don't you rub it in some more?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
We don't need a fountain of youth. We need a fountain of smart.
-- Bill Mattocks's .sig

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Yeah, I missed that part. Why don't you rub it in some more?


I rub just enough, and then I stop.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I missed that part. Why don't you rub it in some more?


I rub just enough, and then I stop.

That's what... nah, too easy.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
As convenient as it is for information to come to us, libraries do have a
valuable side effect: they force all of the smart people to come together in
one place where they can interact with one another. -- Neal Stephenson

"Paul Tomblin" wrote:

I rub just enough, and then I stop.

That's what... nah, too easy.

LOL

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote :

Yes, it's quite possible the inverted ship was acting like a diving
bell and the water level inside the hull was below the water level in
the harbor outside. Opening a hole in the hull would then release air
which had been forcing the interior water level down. But the water
levels would then equalize, the hull would not fill with water and
water would not then flow out of the hole.

Wasn't the superstructure resting on the bottom, anyway?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM