Question for business jet pilots, re: movie S.W.A.T.

[Jeffrey]

Hi folks. A question, if I may.

In the film "S.W.A.T.", a commandeered Learjet is descending for a landing
on a bridge. The pilot or copilot is going through checklists and he says,
"Go to 'forty percent flaps.' "

I'm a private pilot, and I use DEGREES of flaps (10, 20, or 30 -- and once,
in a really old 172, 40).

Am I correct in thinking that this was movie idiocy -- they spent all their
budget on Samuel L. Jackson and got a third-rate aviation consultant if they
got one at all -- or do Learjet pilots really use "percentage" of flaps?

Thanks for your help.

---Jeffrey

"Only in silence the word,
only in dark the light,
only in dying, life:
bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky."

[Larry Fransson]

In article >,
"Jeffrey" > wrote:

> Am I correct in thinking that this was movie idiocy -- they spent all their
> budget on Samuel L. Jackson and got a third-rate aviation consultant if they
> got one at all -- or do Learjet pilots really use "percentage" of flaps

No. We speak in degrees. Full flaps on a Learjet (the 20- and
30-series, anyway - I can't speak for the 40, 45, 55, or 60) is 40
*degrees*.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

[Micbloo]

>Well, in "S.W.A.T.", they only *just* managed to stop before hitting the
>superstructure at the far end of the bridge.

BTW, have we all noticed how expendable pilots are in the movies or TV whether
it be fixed wing or rotorcraft.
"Damn Hollywood loves to blows up dem helochoppers dont dey bossman"?
"Yeah dey blows up real good".
Next to women and minorities pilots have a low life expectancy in the movies.

[David Lesher]

"Jeffrey" > writes:


>But Hollywood knows that there is no need to make a story plausible when
>only a small fraction of the audience is educated enough to know when its
>intelligence is being insulted.

The one I liked was the chopper trying to drop/extract somebody
onto/from a runaway bus. (Maybe it was that infamous bus-bomb
picture; I donoo..)

So the guy's on the winch cable, the bus goes across the bridge,
and you can CLEARLY see the [current topic] 130 KV transmission
lines running at 90 degrees to the road. See, it's a magic
winch cable that can pass right through obstructions.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[BEEPER708]

That was a Lear 24. Probably THE most INefficient of the Lear Family!!!
IF...(and I think it IS impossible) IF he were to land on WET pavement and were
able to stop in UNDER half a mile....it would be a miracle.

He CERTAINLY would NOT be able to get that aircraft OFF the bridge!!! The Lear
24 needs in EXCESS of 6000' of runway to take off!

Makes for a great story line but they should have made it a MAULE or something
and just flown out at tree-top levels or something.

I hate when they ruin movies with stupid bull**** like that! WHERE ARE THEIR
TECHNICAL ADVISOR'S??????

[[email protected]]

On 19 Aug 2003 01:40:57 GMT, (BEEPER708) wrote:

>That was a Lear 24. Probably THE most INefficient of the Lear Family!!!
>IF...(and I think it IS impossible) IF he were to land on WET pavement and were
>able to stop in UNDER half a mile....it would be a miracle.

Yer probably correct, but I know you can get one stopped on >5,000
feet of wet concrete (no rain grooves).

>He CERTAINLY would NOT be able to get that aircraft OFF the bridge!!! The Lear
>24 needs in EXCESS of 6000' of runway to take off!

You see, that's the funny part. useta work for a company that
based/operated a 24D out of >5,000 feet. After I left, they stretched
it to a whopping 5800 feet. unloaded auto parts out of a crap-load of
"other" Lears at the same field...

snip

>I hate when they ruin movies with stupid bull**** like that! WHERE ARE THEIR
>TECHNICAL ADVISOR'S??????

"They" couldn't possibly care less, kinda like the media...

TC

[Paul Tocknell]

I think the best part was when they went through their before start
checklist, while getting it turned around on the bridge, they said, "lets
get this thing started" and they reached for the gear lever and selected
gear down....hmmmm...from my limited time flying lear 24s, I don't remember
having to put the gear down to get the engines turning!!!

Paul
> wrote in message
...
> On 19 Aug 2003 01:40:57 GMT, (BEEPER708) wrote:
>
> >That was a Lear 24. Probably THE most INefficient of the Lear Family!!!
> >IF...(and I think it IS impossible) IF he were to land on WET pavement
and were
> >able to stop in UNDER half a mile....it would be a miracle.
>
> Yer probably correct, but I know you can get one stopped on >5,000
> feet of wet concrete (no rain grooves).
>
> >He CERTAINLY would NOT be able to get that aircraft OFF the bridge!!!
The Lear
> >24 needs in EXCESS of 6000' of runway to take off!
>
> You see, that's the funny part. useta work for a company that
> based/operated a 24D out of >5,000 feet. After I left, they stretched
> it to a whopping 5800 feet. unloaded auto parts out of a crap-load of
> "other" Lears at the same field...
>
> snip
>
> >I hate when they ruin movies with stupid bull**** like that! WHERE ARE
THEIR
> >TECHNICAL ADVISOR'S??????
>
> "They" couldn't possibly care less, kinda like the media...
>
> TC
>
>

[BEEPER708]

>from my limited time flying lear 24s, I don't remember
>having to put the gear down to get the engines turning!!!

an am I wrong in saying that they wouldn't get it off the ground in less than a
mile? or....ESPECIALLY off of that bridge!! ;)