"The Unit" on CBS Features GA

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
...
days of heightened airport security.

Lest anybody get the wrong idea: I love the show. Never miss an episode....




Figures...

Blueskies wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
...
days of heightened airport security.

Lest anybody get the wrong idea: I love the show. Never miss an episode....




Figures...

Do you have a point?

Speaking of the squawk, No one seemed to notice that he then reached up and
appeared to be pushing the buttons on the #1 Nav radio. Boy I just hain't
that when they can do it right and screw it up so bad.

Other than that I'd like to know just how they filmed the midair it did look
pretty good. I agree the J3 had to be a real special plane!!

Ron Gardner


"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:797f49b72164b@uwe...
Marco Leon wrote:


I knew this thread would soon turn to the inaccuracies! Should we expect
less from us pilots??


Of course not! It's what we do.

I don't normally watch the show, but I happened to catch the action while
channel surfing. The J-3 doing 100 kts, with fairly sophisticated
autopilot
(not just a wing leveler) was pretty impressive. At one point, the
Archer
pilot is instructed to "squawk your transponder" so that he can be
located,
but they don't give him a code to squawk. I don't have Tivo, so I'm
still a
bit leery of how the Archer was able to hit the J-3 hard enough to pitch
it
up into a stall, yet avoid what should have been a fairly major prop
strike.
Also, the terrain was obviously CA and not AR.

I checked the registration on the Archer and it apparently was registered
to a new owner about 3 weeks ago. I wonder if the new owner was surprised
to
see his new bird bashing J-3s on TV :-)

Overall, for an aviation-related Hollywood production, they didn't do too
badly on the technical details. I've seen a lot worse.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"news" == news verizon net news.verizon.net writes:

news I don't believe there is skin paint
news radar in that area that can paint down that low. As I
news recall they were operating in the 2-4000 foot range.

Primary radar? Sure it can operate low, in fact they have software
that removes cars on freeways.
--
This monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of permissiveness,
promiscuity, prophylactics, perversions, pregnancies, abortions,
porno-therapy, pollution, poisoning and proliferation of crimes of all
types.
~ Judge Braswell Dean

And what's with Cool Breeze (I think that's his handle--the youngest
guy flying the Piper), obviously a competent pilot, asking "what
happens when a plane stalls?"
--
You live and learn. At any rate, you live.
Douglas Adams

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
And what's with Cool Breeze (I think that's his handle--the youngest
guy flying the Piper), obviously a competent pilot, asking "what
happens when a plane stalls?"

I think that was more for the audience than himself. All things considered,
they did a pretty good job of getting the aviation details down. There was a
minimal amount of "Hollywood-izing" of the details and some could even be
attributed to the editing room (e.g. saying his altitude was 4000 ft and
climbing while the instruments indicated 1,250 ft and level.)

My guess is that they had a pilot available for consultation.

Marco

Marco Leon wrote:
I think that was more for the audience than himself. All things considered,
they did a pretty good job of getting the aviation details down. There was a
minimal amount of "Hollywood-izing" of the details and some could even be
attributed to the editing room (e.g. saying his altitude was 4000 ft and
climbing while the instruments indicated 1,250 ft and level.)

My guess is that they had a pilot available for consultation.


It was probably a brother in law of some member of the production staff. I
don't imagine anybody with a technical background would have let some of that
stuff slip if he'd been there to correct it. After all, it wouldn't have taken
any time or money to correct the dialogue; nor would it have detracted from the
story. Why not do it right?

1. Squawk IDENT, not 'transponder".
2. Not only did the instruments not agree with his claim of an altitude of
"four", the window didn't either. When he said "four", I didn't know whether he
meant four hundred or four thousand. Looking out the window, I'd have said
about 2000 feet.
3. I'm going to ignore that super duper J-3. Amazing how quickly it flew out
of visual range on takeoff yet was ultimately overtaken by the Archer with
apparent ease on down the road.
4. When the Archer pilot made the near vertical dive on the J-3, did he really
expect to hit it? Trying to make a balls to the wall vertical approach as
opposed to say, just slipping over a few feet from the side and chewing up the
tail with your prop? Banzai!

But this is hardly unusual. When I see hospital scenes on TV, I usually note
all the siderails are down, the oxygen nasal cannula is being worn backwards,
and people's hair is never greasy or uncombed. But that's just me....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

And altitude references using AGL instead of MSL....

--
If one were to take the bible seriously one would go mad. But to take
the bible seriously, one must be already mad.
~ Aleister Crowley

john smith wrote:
In article ,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

Trying to make a balls to the wall vertical approach as
opposed to say, just slipping over a few feet from the side and chewing up
the tail with your prop?

Metal prop on steel tube fuselage isn't the best of ideas for the pilot
behind the metal prop.


He was going to make a kamikazi approach from above. Do you really think at
that point it would have made any difference to him?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

john smith wrote in
:

In article ,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

Trying to make a balls to the wall vertical approach as
opposed to say, just slipping over a few feet from the side and
chewing up the tail with your prop?

Metal prop on steel tube fuselage isn't the best of ideas for the
pilot behind the metal prop.

That was a tactic used by Russian pilots in WWII. Just because they
ran out of ammo was no reason for them not to attack a German fighter.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)