Mystery plane! - New stealth fighter

Jay,

Does *anyone* on a piloting newsgroup NOT like "Top Gun" -- undoubtedly the
best flying movie of all time?

I assume you are asking that question heavily tongue-in-cheek g. I
admire the movie, largely because one of my aviation heroes, Art
Scholl, was killed filming it. It's a wonderful propaganda and
recruiting piece and I know of several current pilots who decided to
become pilots after watching it. The acting is weak and the technical
work is awful.

If you want a good flying movie, go find a copy of "633 Squadron",
which is technically the most accurate flying movie ever made (plot is
a little shakey, although it's based on fact), the uniforms, vehicles
and aircraft are 100% accurate (according to folks who know that sort
of thing) and the scenes of the Merlin powered D.H. Mosquitoes flying
are excellent. The only downside is that they destroyed a Mossie
filming the movie. Another flying movie that is better than "Top Gun"
is "Battle of Britain" which has some extraordinary flight sequences
using WWII aircraft (even though all the German airplanes have Merlin
engines by the time they filmed it, about 1968).

Warmest regards,
Rick

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message " -- undoubtedly the
best flying movie of all time?

The Great Waldo Pepper!

D.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message " -- undoubtedly the
best flying movie of all time?

The Great Waldo Pepper!

D.

I don't know why you would assume that. The Navy, and the DOD in general,
vet movies pretty well before letting them use thier stuff and I'd be
willing to bet that is a Navy CV or CVN.

You may or may not have liked "Top Gun" but I wouldn't call it a bad
movie.
I can't think of a DOD supported film in the last 10 years that would fall
into the really sucks column.

At last, I have found it! Proof positive that you can't say ANYTHING in
this newsgroup, not matter how innocuous, no matter how tongue-in-cheek, and
not gather at least one indignantly negative response.

Thanks, Gig... I really needed this last bit of proof before I published my
dissertation ("Flame Wars and Hypersensitive Aviators: An Analysis of
Dispute in Rec.Aviation.Piloting"), and you have given it to me! With any
luck, I can get this to the committee today and get hooded at the December
graduation. Wooo-hooo!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
link.net...
I don't know why you would assume that. The Navy, and the DOD in general,
vet movies pretty well before letting them use thier stuff and I'd be
willing to bet that is a Navy CV or CVN.

You may or may not have liked "Top Gun" but I wouldn't call it a bad
movie.
I can't think of a DOD supported film in the last 10 years that would
fall
into the really sucks column.

At last, I have found it! Proof positive that you can't say ANYTHING in
this newsgroup, not matter how innocuous, no matter how tongue-in-cheek,
and
not gather at least one indignantly negative response.

Thanks, Gig... I really needed this last bit of proof before I published
my
dissertation ("Flame Wars and Hypersensitive Aviators: An Analysis of
Dispute in Rec.Aviation.Piloting"), and you have given it to me! With any
luck, I can get this to the committee today and get hooded at the December
graduation. Wooo-hooo!



I would hardly call my response a flame or in any way hypersensitive and I
would defeinatly not call it an indignantly negative response.

But please feel free to use your response to defend your disertation. I'm
sure you'll look good in the cap.

Gig Giacona wrote:

I don't know why you would assume that. The Navy, and the DOD in general,
vet movies pretty well before letting them use thier stuff and I'd be
willing to bet that is a Navy CV or CVN.

According to Todd's post, it's the Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72).

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Chris Gumm wrote:

What is an Air Force plane doing on a carrier???

Making a movie.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.


Well it's definitely not something realistic- it's not even hooked up
to the catapult! I'd pay $5 to launch a movie prop off the end of the
desk : )

-lance smith

They used to launch the Skippers private car off the cat as practice
for the newbe's G

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````

On 6 Oct 2004 17:39:43 -0700, (lance smith)
wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Chris Gumm wrote:

What is an Air Force plane doing on a carrier???

Making a movie.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.


Well it's definitely not something realistic- it's not even hooked up
to the catapult! I'd pay $5 to launch a movie prop off the end of the
desk : )

-lance smith

"Big John" wrote in message
news

They used to launch the Skippers private car off the cat as practice
for the newbe's G

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````


Like this!

http://www.thejump.net/humor/catch-and-release.htm

By the way the plane design is heavily borrowed from a Northrop patent. It
was given the name of switchblade by Internet people when patent appeared
back in 1995 as far as I remember, and there are plenty of digital mockups
of it around.

Todd Pattist wrote:

I thought some of you might like to see our new stealth
fighter:

The plane in these pictures is still officially Air Vehicle
Number 1, a prototype on board the USS Washington for
catapult fit checks. It's not exactly top secret, but
certainly not public info. To be known as the F/A-37.
Although specs are classified, it is believed to be a Mach
3.5 (top speed in the Mach 4 range), super-cruise stealth
fighter/bomber/interceptor with approximately a 4000 mile
range. Awesome!

http://pages.cthome.net/pattist/imag...-37on_deck.jpg

http://pages.cthome.net/pattist/imag...-A-37_cat1.jpg

http://pages.cthome.net/pattist/imag...A-37_pilot.jpg

http://pages.cthome.net/pattist/imag...37catapult.jpg

Look at the pictures first ;-)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Hollywood Joins Abe Underway to Film 'Stealth' Release
Date:
6/23/2004 1:57:00 PM By Journalist Seaman Michael Cook, USS
Abraham Lincoln Public Affairs


This airplane has been making the rounds for several weeks
now, with folks being a bit confused as to whether it is the
real deal.

On 18 June 2004 a scene for the upcoming Columbia Tri-Star
movie "Stealth" was filmed on the flight deck aboard the
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72).
Lincoln was conducting local operations in preparation for
an upcoming scheduled deployment after 10 months of dry
docked Planned Incremental Availability (PIA). About 80 cast
and crew members were aboard the Everett-based aircraft
carrier to shoot scenes for the Columbia Pictures action
film starring Josh Lucas, Jessica Biel and Sam Shepard, The
$130 million film is expected to hit theaters in 2005.

According to the back story, the F/A-37 "Talon" is a Mach
3.5, super cruise stealth fighter/bomber/interceptor with a
4000nm range. Top speed is somewhere in the Mach 4+ range.
The movie is premised on an artificial-intelligence program
designed to fly jet aircraft and reduce human casualties.
Not surprisingly, one of the AI robo-pilots runs amok when
Navy officials decide to use an unmanned version of the
?Talon?. When the plane begins attacking friendly forces,
Navy pilots are called in to save the planet from artificial
intelligence.

I looked up the movie "Stealth" and it looks like a July
release next year.
That female pilot is Jessica Biel. Sam Shepard and Jamie
Foxx are in the movie.

Debunked!




"It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and
skill." Wilbur Wright