The Worst Aviation Movie of All Time

On Mar 28, 8:37 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
But after last night I can honestly say that the award for worst
aviation movie EVER made goes to "Iron Eagle" -- the 1986 movie that
was the Air Forces's quick answer to the success of "Top Gun".


You say that only because you never saw the Army's answer to Iron
Eagle. I don't remember the name but it was about Army copter pilots
(Apaches IIRC) and has even worse acting and yet worse dialog. They
even found a way to make attack helicopters cheesy on the big screen.
I sure wish I could remember the name of it but something tells me I
didn't "accidentally" forget it.

Greg

Tom Conner wrote:
I have forgotten the name, but there was a movie with Steven Segal about a
high-jacked airliner. His commando team was in another plane that flew
underneath the high-jacked plane and they managed to attach a tube between
the two planes. Then the commandos went through the tube into the other
plane. Compared to what comes next, that part is plausible. Once the
commandos are on the plane they go into this attic type area above all the
seats and use it to traverse the plane. Sort of like a baggage compartment
on top of the plane, but without the baggage. Even though I love science
fiction, even I couldn't suspend belief and accept the plane in this movie.

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.

On Mar 28, 8:37 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
We often talk about the BEST aviation movie here, but how 'bout the
worst?

I remembered the name. It was falled "Firebirds", 1990. I found it
at IMDB too.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099575/

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:59:06 -0500, vincent p. norris wrote:

For the number of technical errors in a movie that PRETENDS TO BE
HISTORY, "Midway" is a strong contender!

The account of the battle, so far as I know, is accurate, but the
flying scenes are riddled with errors.

The errors are due, I believe, to the complete lack of any new flying scenes
shot for the movie. All the action scenes are from actual footage or other
movies. Hence, they don't match the real case very often, and you'll see a
character's plane magically change markings or even types.

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to, Ron. But surely the
makers of that movie could have found more accurate had they made the
effort. I blame it on (a) ignorance or (b) arrogance.

Try c) Apathy. 99% of the movie-going public won't care, so why should the
filmmakers? In a world that can disgorge "Iron Eagle" and three sequels, should
we expect better? :-)

Midway *does* have good music...another John Williams score.

Ron Wanttaja

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

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:jd0Ph.5023$5E3.3668@trndny01...

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.


It was a C-123.

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.

On Mar 29, 7:59 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Because the air pressure that was holding the water out was released?
Before they cut it, it was acting like a diving bell.

No, I'm not defending the movie, and I don't even remember the scene you
are describing, but when you cut through a hull it's quite possible for
the water level inside to rise because of trapped air leaving.


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.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
On Mar 29, 7:59 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
Because the air pressure that was holding the water out was released?
Before they cut it, it was acting like a diving bell.

No, I'm not defending the movie, and I don't even remember the scene you
are describing, but when you cut through a hull it's quite possible for
the water level inside to rise because of trapped air leaving.


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.

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


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
The people here have other bones to pick -- possibly including yours.
-- Mike Andrews

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...

TC