Firefox?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.