What really happened to Chuck Noland's plane

Roger Long writes:

I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.

I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
peace if he screwed up on any of the details.

Of course, _Cast Away_ was made up, but I don't see any reason why a
made-up movie can't still be technically accurate, unless the whole plot
revolves around something implausible or impossible (but that isn't the
case here).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Richard Russell writes:

It's a movie, not a documentary!

Granted, but I know a lot of people who were spooked into a fear of
flying after seeing that movie (I wasn't one of them, fortunately).

By the way, the attitude indicator does not indicate a "climb",
it indicates a nose-up attitude. Every time I land I have a
nose-up attitude while I decent gently to the runway.

Still, you wouldn't expect to be able to see the surface of the ocean
right in front of your windshield if the nose were pointing up.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

C J Campbell writes:

The load begins to shift and some of it punches through
the fuselage wall, causing an explosive decompression
and damaging several control systems.

Is this plausible in real life?

Also, aren't most of the control systems along the bottom of the
fuselage, such that punching through the sides would not damage them?
(And if the cargo is punching through the _bottom_ of the aircraft, I'd
really be interested in knowing how that can happen.)

The airplane descends rapidly to 10,000 feet as the pilots
fight for control of the aircraft.

How fast can this happen in real life? I guessed 35,000 feet for the
initial altitude, 10,000 feet for the final altitude. That's 25,000
feet in the space of a few seconds (because they aren't wearing masks
for very long, as I recall). 24,000 feet is 4 nm, and if they do that
in, say, 15 seconds, that's 16 nm per minute, or over 900 kt (and thus
above the speed of sound). Or am I missing something?

This descent is compressed in time to prevent the audience
from becoming bored with the scene.

Hmm. Maybe.

I can believe the load shifting and causing a decompression because I have
seen this happen to friends of mine. They lived, but were hospitalized for
six months.

I'm surprised the load could develop enough inertia to breach the
fuselage. Isn't everything packed in pretty tight, and tied down as
well?

Although Noland is alone on the island for years, he does not go crazy or
commit suicide.

He never has to trim his nails, either. Nothing to do with aviation,
but I couldn't prevent myself from noticing that in the movie.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Dan Luke writes:

... and vessels in space make a "whoosh" sound as
they go by.

Sometimes they make a deep rumble.

The only movie I can think of with no real technical errors is _2001_.

I do recall that _Airport_, despite all the ridicule it has received
over the years, did not seem to have any glaring technical errors,
either. It was a good movie, too, although it has been spoofed so many
times that it's hard to watch it without smiling, and the movie is badly
dated, thanks to the extraordinary paranoia that has infested air travel
in the years since it was made.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Roger Long writes:

I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.

I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
peace if he screwed up on any of the details.

Well, he'll have to live with these "goofs" -
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/goofs

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell writes:

I can believe the load shifting and causing a decompression because I
have
seen this happen to friends of mine. They lived, but were hospitalized
for
six months.

I'm surprised the load could develop enough inertia to breach the
fuselage. Isn't everything packed in pretty tight, and tied down as
well?

Towards the end of the movie, he is told that they speculated there was an
explosion in the cargo hold. (Recall that this came out shortly after the
oxygen cylinder explosed and caused the crash in the Everglades in
Florida -- ValuJet or some such carrier.


Although Noland is alone on the island for years, he does not go crazy
or
commit suicide.

Recall that he made the rope to hang himself, but "chickened out".


He never has to trim his nails, either. Nothing to do with aviation,
but I couldn't prevent myself from noticing that in the movie.

He'd likely break them with all the manual labor he had to do -- but his
teeth were just a white when he got back as if he'd just got back from the
dentist.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 06:55:59 in message
, C J Campbell
wrote:
The first thing you have to understand about Hollywood is that the laws of
physics in most movies come from an alternate universe. Bullets flash when
they strike metal (and sometimes even wood!). Laser beams are visible for
all to see. People can outrun shock waves that are traveling at the speed of
sound and reach tiny crevices that will shelter them from all the buses and
vehicles being swept along by the shock wave.

I think you will find that in an explosion from something like an atomic
bomb, at first the shock wave travels _much faster_ than the 'normal'
speed of sound because of the very high pressure behind it and the very
high temperatures. It certainly won't travel much slower as it sometimes
appears to in movies!
--
David E-Mail reply to

Roger,

There was at least one glaring mistake in Titantic. The character Jack claimed
to be from Lake Wissota. That's a man made lake in Wisconsin that was created
more than 5 years AFTER the ship sank.

I also heard mention that in the movie there is a worship scene where they sing
a song including verses which weren't added until in the 30's.

There are exceptions. I've been in the marine business for 30 years,
designed ships and done flooding and strength calculations on them. I've
also participated in accident investigations. I watched the whole of
"Titanic" without seeing a single fact out of place. The director was
stunningly compulsive. He didn't do "Castaway" though.

--
Roger Long

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Roger Long writes:

I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.

I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
peace if he screwed up on any of the details.

Well, he'll have to live with these "goofs" -
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/goofs

James Campbell's insistence on accuracy was taken as a challenge by the
compulsive mistake-watchers. As a result, it takes the number one spot on
http://www.moviemistakes.com/top.php. Although there are many continuity
mistakes listed, there are plenty of trivial anachronisms and the like.

-- David Brooks

RAM writes:

There was at least one glaring mistake in Titantic. The character Jack claimed
to be from Lake Wissota. That's a man made lake in Wisconsin that was created
more than 5 years AFTER the ship sank.

That may glare at people living near the lake, but I rather doubt that
the rest of the world outside Wisconsin notices it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.