Firefox?

[Christopher]

I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.

Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
followed the jet exhausts.

Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
went that fast that low over water?


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[user]

How about a bomber??? ;)

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:53:55 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

>I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
>before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>
>Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
>down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
>about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
>followed the jet exhausts.
>
>Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
>went that fast that low over water?
>
>
>Christopher
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>"Kites rise highest against
>the wind - not with it."
> Winston Churchill

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Christopher) wrote:

> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>
> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
> followed the jet exhausts.
>
> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
> went that fast that low over water?

One of my favorite Cold War efforts was "Project Pluto," which featured
a Mach 3, nuclear-powered ramjet that would fly in at low altitude, drop
nukes in various places over the Soviet Union, then fly around until the
reactor came apart... it could have caused *more* damage with the
intense sonic booms and reactor pollution than it would have from the
bombs it would have dropped.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[JasiekS]

U¿ytkownik "Christopher" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>
> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
> followed the jet exhausts.
>
> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
> went that fast that low over water?

Yes, this effect exists in the real world. Some time ago I searched the Net
looking for some spectacular pictures. I found picture of low flying F-14
ripping two craters out of sea. Unfortunately I don't have URL handy. It
could be Peter Steehouver's page (www.steehouver.com) but I am not sure.

According to Google, Firefox' question was discussed three times in this
year alone:
- March (Dumbest thing in aviation movies) - 177 posts (not only about
Firefox)
- June ([Aus TV] Firefox) - 13 posts
- June (Firefox question) - 38 posts

>
>
> Christopher

Regards
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:17:21 +0100, "JasiekS"
> wrote:

>
>U¿ytkownik "Christopher" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
>> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
>> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>>
>> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
>> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
>> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
>> followed the jet exhausts.
>>
>> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
>> went that fast that low over water?
>
>Yes, this effect exists in the real world. Some time ago I searched the Net
>looking for some spectacular pictures. I found picture of low flying F-14
>ripping two craters out of sea.


That's a PAINTING. It could have just as easily had walls of fire
coming out of the water.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:13:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> (Christopher) wrote:
>
>> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
>> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>>
>> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
>> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
>> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
>> followed the jet exhausts.
>>
>> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
>> went that fast that low over water?
>
>One of my favorite Cold War efforts was "Project Pluto," which featured
>a Mach 3, nuclear-powered ramjet that would fly in at low altitude, drop
>nukes in various places over the Soviet Union, then fly around until the
>reactor came apart... it could have caused *more* damage with the
>intense sonic booms and reactor pollution than it would have from the
>bombs it would have dropped.

Possibly less damage over a wider area but the effects of up to 26
nukes would be tough to beat.

[Christopher]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:41:03 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:17:21 +0100, "JasiekS"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>U¿ytkownik "Christopher" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
>>> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
>>> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>>>
>>> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
>>> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
>>> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
>>> followed the jet exhausts.
>>>
>>> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
>>> went that fast that low over water?
>>
>>Yes, this effect exists in the real world. Some time ago I searched the Net
>>looking for some spectacular pictures. I found picture of low flying F-14
>>ripping two craters out of sea.
>
>
>That's a PAINTING. It could have just as easily had walls of fire
>coming out of the water.

Thats a pity. So if it was a painting of the effect, and not real,
what effect WOULD a plane doing Mach 3 or higher, 50 feet above water
have?



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[Christopher]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:39:11 GMT, user > wrote:

>How about a bomber??? ;)

I've seen that, and from reply posts it's a cgi effected picture, and
not a real event, I don't think the pilots CoC would be happy about
him doing that with a Bone. :-)

>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:53:55 GMT, (Christopher)
>wrote:
>
>>I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
>>before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>>
>>Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
>>down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
>>about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
>>followed the jet exhausts.
>>
>>Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
>>went that fast that low over water?
>>
>>
>>Christopher
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>"Kites rise highest against
>>the wind - not with it."
>> Winston Churchill
>

Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[Abe]

In article >,
says...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:41:03 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:17:21 +0100, "JasiekS"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>U¿ytkownik "Christopher" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> ...
> >>> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
> >>> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
> >>> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
> >>> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
> >>> followed the jet exhausts.
> >>>
> >>> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
> >>> went that fast that low over water?
> >>
> >>Yes, this effect exists in the real world. Some time ago I searched the Net
> >>looking for some spectacular pictures. I found picture of low flying F-14
> >>ripping two craters out of sea.
> >
> >
> >That's a PAINTING. It could have just as easily had walls of fire
> >coming out of the water.
>
> Thats a pity. So if it was a painting of the effect, and not real,
> what effect WOULD a plane doing Mach 3 or higher, 50 feet above water
> have?

A long, brown stain on the water?

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:34:56 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:41:03 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:17:21 +0100, "JasiekS"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>U¿ytkownik "Christopher" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
>>>> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
>>>> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
>>>> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
>>>> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
>>>> followed the jet exhausts.
>>>>
>>>> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
>>>> went that fast that low over water?
>>>
>>>Yes, this effect exists in the real world. Some time ago I searched the Net
>>>looking for some spectacular pictures. I found picture of low flying F-14
>>>ripping two craters out of sea.
>>
>>
>>That's a PAINTING. It could have just as easily had walls of fire
>>coming out of the water.
>
>Thats a pity. So if it was a painting of the effect, and not real,
>what effect WOULD a plane doing Mach 3 or higher, 50 feet above water
>have?

Here's the site of the guy who did the painting. Fantastic work.
There's a B-1 there doing the rooster tail thing too.

[Scott Ferrin]

Guess it would help if I included the link

http://www.drublair.com/

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "Scott Ferrin" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:17:21 +0100, "JasiekS"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >U¿ytkownik "Christopher" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> ...
> >> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
> >> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.

[snip...]

> >
> >Yes, this effect exists in the real world. Some time ago I searched the
Net
> >looking for some spectacular pictures. I found picture of low flying F-14
> >ripping two craters out of sea.
>
>
> That's a PAINTING. It could have just as easily had walls of fire
> coming out of the water.

MEA CULPA!!
I found this image again and I realized, that it has hand-written signature
in the lower-right corner.
I found also some variation of this picture, in which a water-skier rode the
wawes :-o)))

Regards
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

[Yeff]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:40:47 +0100, JasiekS wrote:

> I found also some variation of this picture, in which a water-skier rode the
> wawes :-o)))

Here's what's reported to be a low altitude supersonic pass by an F-14.
Check out the water below the Tomcat:
<http://home.csumb.edu/m/mcdonalderik/world/superflyby.mpeg>

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Christopher]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:47:06 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>
>
>Guess it would help if I included the link
>
>http://www.drublair.com/

Thanks but I have both pics already.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[John Carrier]

No manned aircraft will make 3.0 on the deck. 1.2 - 1.3 is about it (which
is scary fast under 100 feet). Yes, the shock will be visible on the water.
Get low enough and your exhaust creates a roostertail even when subsonic.

R / John

"Christopher" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:41:03 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:17:21 +0100, "JasiekS"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>U¿ytkownik "Christopher" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> ...
> >>> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
> >>> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
> >>> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
> >>> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
> >>> followed the jet exhausts.
> >>>
> >>> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
> >>> went that fast that low over water?
> >>
> >>Yes, this effect exists in the real world. Some time ago I searched the
Net
> >>looking for some spectacular pictures. I found picture of low flying
F-14
> >>ripping two craters out of sea.
> >
> >
> >That's a PAINTING. It could have just as easily had walls of fire
> >coming out of the water.
>
> Thats a pity. So if it was a painting of the effect, and not real,
> what effect WOULD a plane doing Mach 3 or higher, 50 feet above water
> have?
>
>
>
> Christopher
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "Kites rise highest against
> the wind - not with it."
> Winston Churchill

[Christopher]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:10:18 -0600, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>No manned aircraft will make 3.0 on the deck. 1.2 - 1.3 is about it (which
>is scary fast under 100 feet). Yes, the shock will be visible on the water.
>Get low enough and your exhaust creates a roostertail even when subsonic.

Thanks for that, it seems the special effects guys for the movie did a
bit of research as to what would happen when Firefox went that fast
that low. It'd be quite a ride to do it for real. :-)

>"Christopher" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:41:03 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:17:21 +0100, "JasiekS"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>U¿ytkownik "Christopher" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
>> ...
>> >>> I watched a dvd of the Clint Eastwood movie yesterday-I've seen it
>> >>> before-bit of a slow movie but the Mig flying effects were cool.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyway, over the northen ocean above Russia when Clint was bearing
>> >>> down on the Russian missile crusier he got it up to Mach 2.8 to Mach 3
>> >>> about 50 feet above the water. The effect was a twin water plume that
>> >>> followed the jet exhausts.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would you get the same effect in the real world if a fighter plane
>> >>> went that fast that low over water?
>> >>
>> >>Yes, this effect exists in the real world. Some time ago I searched the
>Net
>> >>looking for some spectacular pictures. I found picture of low flying
>F-14
>> >>ripping two craters out of sea.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's a PAINTING. It could have just as easily had walls of fire
>> >coming out of the water.
>>
>> Thats a pity. So if it was a painting of the effect, and not real,
>> what effect WOULD a plane doing Mach 3 or higher, 50 feet above water
>> have?
>>
>>
>>
>> Christopher
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> "Kites rise highest against
>> the wind - not with it."
>> Winston Churchill
>
>

Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "Yeff" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:40:47 +0100, JasiekS wrote:
>
> > I found also some variation of this picture, in which a water-skier rode
the
> > wawes :-o)))
>
> Here's what's reported to be a low altitude supersonic pass by an F-14.
> Check out the water below the Tomcat:
> <http://home.csumb.edu/m/mcdonalderik/world/superflyby.mpeg>
>
> -Jeff B.
> yeff at erols dot com

I know this clip. It was mentioned couple of times on this NG. I Think it is
high-subsonic rather than supersonic flight. In the case of real supersonic
flight a shock waves would appear on wings' leading edges and on fuselage
preventing the buildup of vapour. In this clip the shock wave is probably
where you cannot see it - BEHIND the 'cloud'.

Regards
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

[Ad absurdum per aspera]

>>I found picture of low flying F-14 ripping two craters out of sea.

> That's a PAINTING.

Possibly from Dru Blair's studio; this is a favorite motif of his.
See if this looks familiar:
http://www.drublair.com/tomcat.html
("I researched this piece quite a bit, visiting the FAA Tech Center in
Ocean City, New Jersey, for information on fluid dynamics, vortex
generation, etc.," he says in an interview transcript available on the
site.)

Cheers,
--Joe

[John Mullen]

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:

>>>I found picture of low flying F-14 ripping two craters out of sea.
>
>
>>That's a PAINTING.
>
>
> Possibly from Dru Blair's studio; this is a favorite motif of his.
> See if this looks familiar:
> http://www.drublair.com/tomcat.html
> ("I researched this piece quite a bit, visiting the FAA Tech Center in
> Ocean City, New Jersey, for information on fluid dynamics, vortex
> generation, etc.," he says in an interview transcript available on the
> site.)

Good post. Awful painting.

John