 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / October 2007Top Gun
In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing this film. I've recorded the first three minutes. That short clip is one of the best representations of aviation that I have ever seen. I didn't bother with the rest of the film. Once that A-7 comes to rest, the remainder of the film is crap!!!  SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing this > film. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rest of the film. Once that A-7 comes to rest, the remainder of the film is > crap!!! ...the whole of the film is crap, IMO. Signature- Rufus on 10/7/2007 5:13 PM Rufus said the following: >> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing >> this film. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ....the whole of the film is crap, IMO. Hot Shots, and Hot Shots Part Deux, were better. SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ >on 10/7/2007 5:13 PM Rufus said the following: >>> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >Hot Shots, and Hot Shots Part Deux, were better. same with the naked guns. i only like the fist 10 minutes of saving private ryan. once they shoot the prisoners, it's back to pinky and the brain. if you've never seen pinky and the brain, disney is giving it a spin. what is narf, pinky? well, it's like poyt with an n, isn't it, brain? >> on 10/7/2007 5:13 PM Rufus said the following: >>>> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > what is narf, pinky? > well, it's like poyt with an n, isn't it, brain? Are you pondering what I'm pondering? SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >>> on 10/7/2007 5:13 PM Rufus said the following: >>>>> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Are you pondering what I'm pondering? could be, pinky >> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing >> this film. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ...the whole of the film is crap, IMO. Have you ever seen the video for Will Young's song "Switch It On"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGI-7Wc6Nkg It's is a self-consciously gay pastiche of "Top Gun". The trouble is that although it tries hard to be gay, it still isn't quite as homoerotic as the Tom Cruise film! Incidentally, rather than using F-14s, the aircraft are a Hawker Hunter T7 and Blackburn Buccaneers. so... the single and video were made in 2005. Where, in 2005, were there still airworthy Buccaneers? SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >>> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing >>> this film. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > so... the single and video were made in 2005. Where, in 2005, were > there still airworthy Buccaneers? aha... answering my own question, a little research on the web shows that the video was filmed in Thunder City, Cape Town, South Africa. Makes sense. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > >>> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing > >>> this film. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > aha... answering my own question, a little research on the web shows that > the video was filmed in Thunder City, Cape Town, South Africa. Makes sense. if you can afford it, they do pleasure trips >>>> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing >>>> this film. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that the video was filmed in Thunder City, Cape Town, South Africa. Makes > sense. DOH! Hit the send key by mistake. (kim) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGI-7Wc6Nkg After watching that remake of that pap, you may need to view this to cleanse the palate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGI-7Wc6Nkg And this is not the first remake of Top Gun..the first remake of Top Gun was called Days of Thunder. (tongue in cheek.. another absolutely horrid movie) --- Stephen >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGI-7Wc6Nkg > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --- Stephen When "Days of Thunder" came out, I gave my kid the choice of it or the "Ghost Dad" preimer, she chose the Cosby flick. It was waaay better, not that I am saying that "Ghost Dad" was real good; just that the Cruise film was so lousy. >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGI-7Wc6Nkg >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not that I am saying that "Ghost Dad" was real good; just that the > Cruise film was so lousy. If *course* it was lousy... it had Tom Cruise in it! "War of the Worlds" was his worst yet! No attempt at any sort of logical plotline, an annoying self-obsessed teenager who thinks his problems are so important that he steals the car in the middle of an alien invasion and Tom Cruise gets acted off the screen by an eleven-year-old girl who has no dialogue! ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. : If *course* it was lousy... it had Tom Cruise in it! : [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : Cruise gets acted off the screen by an eleven-year-old girl who has no : dialogue! ;-) I knew the movie was going to be a stinker when the previews were: CRUISE! SPIELBERG! WAR OF THE WORLDS! Yeah, okay, this movie stinks so bad, we can only hope that "star power" brings them in. Unfortunately, the bad taste of MI:II was still lingering, as was SPR, so I knew it was going to be super heavy on CGI, and no acting was required. Bruce Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes > I knew the movie was going to be a stinker when the previews > were: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Bruce > The war machines looked neat, as did the Martians themselves. I have no idea why the whole "buried war machine" idea was used, as it made no sense - as sooner or later someone was going to bump into one while digging a subway or mine. This is the concept of screwing around with a good story for the sake of screwing around with it. And I'm getting sick and tired of those kids that Spielberg sticks into all his movies of recent. Frankly, I think he may have some problems of the Michael Jackson nature when it comes to kids, although it could also be that both he and George Lucas never emotionally developed much past age twelve, and still think of themselves as children. Pat Pat > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGI-7Wc6Nkg > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --- Stephen Never bothered with that one. It didn't have F-14s, just Cruise and Chevys. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >>> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing >>> this film. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > so... the single and video were made in 2005. Where, in 2005, were there > still airworthy Buccaneers? ...the symbolism behind (so to speak...) the Buccaneers is priceless... Signature- Rufus > In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing this > film. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rest of the film. Once that A-7 comes to rest, the remainder of the film is > crap!!! Watch how maneuverable those aggressor squadron A-4s are in comparison to the F-14s. It's no wonder that Israeli pilots fell head over heels in love with that plane. Pat >> In the UK, the satellite telly channel Sky onc is currently showing >> this film. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pat The pilots don't call 'em "scooters" for nothin'. Signature- Rufus > > Pat Flannery wrote: > > Watch how maneuverable those aggressor squadron A-4s are in comparison [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rufus wrote: > >The pilots don't call 'em "scooters" for nothin'. Hey guys, lets put things into perspective here. For one thing the ' souped up ' version of the Skyhawk used by Navy/Marine aggressor squadrons was called the " Super Fox ". It was an A-4F that was stripped of everything non-essential for the role of an aggressor ( guns, ammo, pylons, avionics hump, etc. ) and powered by the most powerful engine available for the A-4 providing 9,400 lbs of thrust ( later replaced with a version of the J52 providing 11,200 lbs of thrust ). To compare the maneuverability of a stripped version of the Skyhawk to that of an F-14 is not really a ' real-world ' comparison. An A-4 ' loaded for bear ' is a real dog as far as trying to maneuver with an opponent. " Super Fox " A-4's were simulating a Vietnam type situation where U.S. fighters flying from a good distance from home base engage nimble Mig-17's that are very close to home base. Chris >>> Pat Flannery wrote: >>> Watch how maneuverable those aggressor squadron A-4s are in comparison [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Chris ...I dunno. I worked with a Harrier test pilot once that was current in both Harriers and "stock" A-4s at the time, and he referred to the A-4 as a "scooter". And loved them. Signature- Rufus Let's not forget the national military secret that was accidentally shown in Top Gun. To this day no one has been able to track down just how a single AAM can be fired from the same underwing pylon at least twice in the same fight!!! A memorable moment in film. A truely momentous moment in film came last night at the Marin Symphony when they played a compilation of Shostakovich accompanying Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin. Amazing film, outstanding music. As stirring as the film/music was, the sold out house also surprised me by singing the national anthem with the full orchestra before the show. That's the first time that I have heard that many people sing it in many years. At a baseball game it's unusual to see people even take off their hats or stand for the national anthem. Tom > >>> Pat Flannery wrote: > >>> Watch how maneuverable those aggressor squadron A-4s are in comparison [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > A truely momentous moment in film came last night at the Marin > Symphony when they played a compilation of Shostakovich accompanying > Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin. Amazing film, outstanding music. I haven't seen that one in years, thought the ending seems anticlimactic after all the other things that go on in the movie, including the great, but fictitious, slaughter on the Odessa steps. I recently latched onto a uncut copy of "The Fall Of Berlin" with all the Stalin scenes restored, and the score by Dmitri Shostakovich...this movie shows that when it comes to Stalin, there is no way to lay the praise on too heavily. Because if he doesn't like it... :-) pat > snip> >A truely momentous moment in film came last night at the Marin [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tom Especially considering it is the Bay Area of Calif. >> snip> >>A truely momentous moment in film came last night at the Marin [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >Especially considering it is the Bay Area of Calif. you sh.tting me? people don't stand for the national anthem? i went to a bruins game in the early 80's and everyone stood and most pretended they knew the words. are you saying people don't even stand? what the f.ck is this country coming to? it's a good thing many ww2 vets can't see that. they would either whip out an mg or have a stroke. my father would have done both, somehow. no wonder the world doesn't respect us. > <maies...@netscape.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Especially considering it is the Bay Area of Calif. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Left coast and all that sh.t. Here's another one that may make people who just hate the SF Bay Area and California in general: A Santa Clara, CA (that's part of the SF Bay Area) high school student rescues a scrapbook from a dumpster and shows it to his teacher at Palo Alto High School. It's a WWII scrapbook put together by Barbara and William Costello who had lived in Palo Alto and their kids had attended the same high school. In a one year project funded by the school's site council, the students created a forty page paperback book which they are selling for $10 each. The money goes back into the site council fund. The only thing that they added to the book was a photo on the back cover of the couple's gravestone. The students felt that WWII gets short shrift in school, especially under the No Child Left Behind Act, where tests are all that count and anything else squeezes in on the cheap. As a result of the article about the book the SF Chronicle ran a WWII quiz with the following questions: 1.When was WWII? 2.Who was president during most of WWII? 3.Who was Winston Churchill? 4.Who was Adolph Hitler? 5.Who was Benito Mussolini? 6.Who was Rosie the Riveter? 7.What caused the U.S. to join WWII? 8.How did WWII end? 9.What was the war about? 10.What was the Holocaust? The televison program The War prompted the article and the quiz. Last week was also Fleet Week in SF. The headlines elsewhere were mostly about the single SF supervisor who wanted the Blue Angles banned. Here the news was about what ships were open, when the airshow hours were and the like. Of a score of sailors interviewed by the media one said that a single person flipped him off for no reason, even he said that SF is one of their favorite ports. So dislike our area as much as you like. There are some things that are wrong here, just as everywhere else. But don't paint all of us with the same broad brush, there are just as many patriots here as anywhere else in the country. A couple of thousand people singing the national anthem at the symphony is proof enough. Tom >> <maies...@netscape.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Tom I don't know, what with trying to stifle the 1st Amendment rights of talk show hosts, staged protests against the talk show host for something he didn't say, a transgendered chief of police (now that will scare the gangbangers), refusing to allow the Marines to film a commercial on the Bridge on 9/11, the leather S/M parade in the street complete with whippings, the horrible racist expulsion of a minority (who disagreed with Stalin's stepchild, the mayor) from the council to be replaced by a compliant puppet head and native wombat Nancy Pelosi what's to like? There is a big spotlight on your city and all I can see are the cockroaches. Which is unfortunate because without the freakshow everything else I've seen and heard about the city is quite nice. Frank On Oct 9, 10:20 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote: > "maies...@netscape.com" <maies...@netscape.com> wrote innews:1191984363.372986.60720@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > - Show quoted text - San Francisco is far from being alone in most of the problems that you list above and, just for the sake of clarity, I don't live there, I'm several miles north in Corte Madera. The talk show host that you refer to, an old family friend who passed away tragically a few months back, was on KGO Radio, a station that offers a mix of liberal, conservative and neutral hosts. Their major claim to fame is dealing with some of the craziest callers around, many from out of state. A "transgender police chief"? Where in hell did you get that from? Heather Fong worked her way up from the ranks and is a hell of a lot better than some of her predecessors. She has to deal with the crazies just chiefs an any city and, yes, those crazies include at least two of the members of the SF Board of Supervisors. The fire chef is also female and also does a good job. Perhaps you have gheard that she is actually a Venutian? The USMC asked to film a commercial on a day and at a time that the Golden Gate Bridge was unavailable due to maintenance. They were given other days and times and, last I heard, were working it out. I don;t know where you get your fanciful stories from, but the SF police chief has no say over the Golden Gate Bridge, it is a seperate district. Perhaps Rush should stick to what he knows best, like maybe drug addiction and bald face lies. The "horrible racist expulsion of a minority" was a Board of Supervisors member who is Asian. His "neighbors" pointed out during the election and after that his "home" had no electrical, water, sewage or garbage hookups and that no one had lived there for years. He was replaced by another Asian, a minor official, not by Nancy Pelosi, but I think that was just a type in your harangue. Freakshows are, indeed, one of SFs major claims to infamy. Ever been to Mardi Gras? SF officials have been trying to get rid of this nonsense (trampeling on their 1st Amendment Rights?) for years. Especially the huge mostly gay Halloween party in the streets where more and more people have been getting hurt and killed in the last few years. If you are under the impression that leather bars are limited to SF you need to get out more. I know that we'll never agree on any of this. So let me ask you this: Are you ever going to be in this area on a trip? If so let me know in advance and I'll show you some of the sights of the SF Bay Area that should knock your socks off. The Hiller Air Museum, Pacific Coast Air Museum, Western Aerospace Museum, three major airports and several small airfields, some of which house a great selection of antique aircraft and warbirds, two very large and mostly unknown military vehicle museums including one that gets you out on the field driving (or at least riding) the vehicles, some of the best and oldest hobby shops in the country, two of the most active IPMS chapters in the country, tours of the military sites including a civil war era fort, WWII fortifications and a restored Nike site with operating lifts and disarmed missiles and more. Come at the right time for Fleet Week, the Wine Country Air Show, 4th of July Parades with lots WWII, Korean War and Vietnam era military vehicles, Civil War re-enactments on Angel Island and much, much more. What's there of similar interest in your area? We've been traveling quite a bit of late and always looking for new sights. Happy modeling, Tom > On Oct 9, 10:20 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > > Tom The talk show hpst was not someone who expored. And I heard none of this from Rush. However if I ever get out that I will take you up on it, like I said I realize Frisco has a fistory separate from the loons and Stalinists. PS the way I heard it the Asian fella was staying with his in-laws as his wife had cancer and they were providing full time care but that indeed the house was his legal residence. I'd also heard he was the lone dissent on several rather political votes and that had he'd been one of the "in" crowd his problems would have been overlooked. Frank On Oct 10, 8:06 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote: > "maies...@netscape.com" <maies...@netscape.com> wrote innews:1192001489.412073.203980@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I left out the ships. The submarine Pampaneno (sp?) is open for tours and the Libberty Jeremia O'Brian has tours and cruises. She was the only ship at the D-Day 50th that had been there in 1944. She has hosted a couple of scale model sales over the year. A crew member passed away and left a sizeable collecton of plastic, all reeking of smoke and some with box art "preserved" with a coating of clear laquer. Another crew member obtained the largest collection of WWII and 1950s wood kits in the world and has slowly sold it off with most of the procedes going to the ship. Had not heard the ill wife at he inlaws story. He is now being investigated for bribery as well. A chain of Asian Tapioca shops (I know, sounds weird to me, too) have claimed that he wanted pretty substantial "donations" to smooth the way for business licenses. It appears that they kept detailed records. My Godfather was Chinese, one of the foremost citizens of Sausalito where I grew up. Their businesses were always being preyed upon by the "Families" (read Tong) from SF. It's a Chinese thing, rarely do Chinese gangsters, or politicians for that matter, prey on anyone other than Chinese. E-mail me for phone, etc. when you are going to be in the area. With a little notice I can have weekdays daytime free and I love to gve tours. I recently took a couple of guys around Marin County tracing railroad history. Can't count how many hobby shop tours I've taken people on. Tom > My Godfather was Chinese, one of the foremost citizens of Sausalito > where I grew up. Their businesses were always being preyed upon by the > "Families" (read Tong) from SF. > Every time I hear that, I keep picturing these guys with hatchets and black bowler hats coming around, inquiring about the whereabouts of one Kwai Chang Caine. They had a lot of fun with Tong hatchet-men* in the movie 'The Kung-Fu Hustle" including a synchronized dance number that's straight out of Bollywood cinema. * ...and just about everything else found in Chinese martial arts movies for that matter - the movie is a work of genius, and one of the funniest things I've ever seen. :-D :-D :-D Pat > The talk show hpst was not someone who expored. And I heard none of this from > Rush. The talk show host who was censured by the station was Pete Wilson (no relation to the past Governor). He made a rather crude racial slur sort of in jest. He did appologize and he was not fired or suspended. A few months later Pete went into surgery for some relatively mnor work and died on the table from an allergic reaction to the anesthesia. Speaking of SF talk show hosts, you should get a belly laugh out of this: A couple of years back KGO decided that it would be OK to have an openly gay host. The guy they got has been a real hoot and quite successful. They brought him in from Los Angeles. Couldn't find a suitable gay radio talk show host in San Francisco. :-) One last thought. Anyone who attended the 1977 IPMS Nationals in San Francisco would have no trouble explaining why that was the best convention ever, especially the banquet. This area has also been the home to some of the finest modelers in the world including the late, very lamented George Lee and Dave Boksanski. Happy modeling, Tom >> The talk show hpst was not someone who expored. And I heard none of this from >> Rush. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Tom i'll be in the bay area in a couple of weeks and i'm excited. last visit was in 69 and the entire universe has changed since then. can't wait to hit berkely hardware, ride the cable cars and eat in chinatown. some boston friends will meet me in l.a. and we will drive down then. i'm very excited. > >> The talk show hpst was not someone who expored. And I heard none of this from > >> Rush. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > some boston friends will meet me in l.a. and we will drive down then. > i'm very excited. Probably not as many of those huge butterflies with looking-glass eyes hanging around as back then. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> In article <1192058357.697283.260030@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > "maiesm72@netscape.com" <maiesm72@netscape.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. i suspect that i won't find people on every corner chanting lids, acid, speed! or that i won't be able to go up to some brightly clad lass with a joint and ask if she wants to f.ck. i don't know if i'm smarter or if memory doesn't look all that great when the actual reality of the times is contemplated. >> Amazing film, outstanding music. As >> stirring as the film/music was, the sold out house also surprised me [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Especially considering it is the Bay Area of Calif. > He didn't say which nation's national anthem it was, comrade. ;-) Pat > ...I dunno. I worked with a Harrier test pilot once that was current > in both Harriers and "stock" A-4s at the time, and he referred to the > A-4 as a "scooter". And loved them. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who didn't like them; they were agile, made a very hard target for gunfire due to their small size, reliable, and could take a lot of battle damage and still come home. The Israelis were supposed to have welded a steel tube extension on the back of the engine nozzle so that it could be easily replaced if a Grail missile went into it, as in most cases the aircraft would survive the hit with just some damage to the back end. Pat from 'Sleep With Me' Originally written by Roger Avary "You want subversion on a massive level. You know what one of the greatest f.cking scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood is? Top Gun. Top Gun is f.cking great. What is Top Gun? You think it's a story about a bunch of fighter pilots. It is a story about a man's struggle with his own homosexuality. It is! That is what Top Gun is about, man. You've got Maverick, all right? He's on the edge, man. He's right on the f.cking line, all right? And you've got Iceman, and all his crew. They're gay, they represent the gay man, all right? And they're saying, go, go the gay way, go the gay way. He could go both ways. Kelly McGillis, she's heterosexuality. She's saying: no, no, no, no, no, no, go the normal way, play by the rules, go the normal way. They're saying no, go the gay way, be the gay way, go for the gay way, all right? That is what's going on throughout that whole movie... He goes to her house, all right? It looks like they're going to have sex, you know, they're just kind of sitting back, he's takin' a shower and everything. They don't have sex. He gets on the motorcycle, drives away. She's like, "What the f.ck, what the f.ck is going on here?" Next scene, next scene you see her, she's in the elevator, she is dressed like a guy. She's got the cap on, she's got the aviator glasses, she's wearing the same jacket that the Iceman wears. She is, okay, this is how I gotta get this guy, this guy's going towards the gay way, I gotta bring him back, I gotta bring him back from the gay way, so I'm do that through subterfuge, I'm gonna dress like a man. All right? That is how she approaches it. All right, but the REAL ending of the movie is when they fight the MIGs at the end, all right? Because he has passed over into the gay way. They are this gay fighting f.cking force, all right? And they're beating the Russians, the gays are beating the Russians. And it's over, and they f.cking land, and Iceman's been trying to get Maverick the entire time, and finally, he's got him, all right? And what is the last f.cking line that they have together? They're all hugging and kissing and happy with each other, and Ice comes up to Maverick, and he says, "Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!" And what does Maverick say? "You can ride mine!" Swordfight! Swordfight! Fuckin' A, man!" > from 'Sleep With Me' > Originally written by Roger Avary [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > he says, "Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!" And what does Maverick > say? "You can ride mine!" Swordfight! Swordfight! Fuckin' A, man!" I feel like I need a shower.... and then a woman. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> from 'Sleep With Me' >> Originally written by Roger Avary [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. ...a shower...WITH a woman. A beach level one... Signature- Rufus >> They're all hugging and >> kissing and happy with each other, and Ice comes up to Maverick, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I feel like I need a shower.... and then a woman. > It's a new take on the movie, that's for sure. Note that Kelly McGillis is wearing seamed stockings in the movie...and I'll bet she has a whip also. :-) I always wanted to change the last scene in Casablanca so that as Louie and Rick disappear into the fog, you see they are holding hands. Pat tomcervo <tomcervo@aol.com> wrote in news:1191887343.967524.320660 @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > from 'Sleep With Me' > Originally written by Roger Avary [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > he says, "Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!" And what does Maverick > say? "You can ride mine!" Swordfight! Swordfight! Fuckin' A, man!" And exactly what planet do you come from? I never thought the movie had anything to do with fags. It's just a Hollywood cheezer with jets in it. I like the deck scenes and the aerial scenes (real or not, I'm not a pilot, what do I know) and you can keep the rest of the cheesy dialog in your pocket. In fact I think I'd like to edit the movie down just to the scenes with planes in them. A shorter and more fun film. But homos? I think someone has an unhealthy obsession. Seek help. Frank On Oct 9, 10:26 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote: > tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com> wrote in news:1191887343.967524.320660 > @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It's much better with the sound turned off. Kind of like the old TV series Dragnet. Tom > On Oct 9, 10:26 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Tom What is starting to really turn me off about movies is the contrived personality conflicts. I think this movie was one of the first that it really became apparent. It's like H'wood has this basic formula and they dare not wander far from it no matter how trite it gets. And please, somebody, find someone who can write dialog!!! Whatever happened to the idea of good dialog that developed characters and advanced the plot. Whatever happened to good characters with depth? Not that it is a completely recent development. I've seen some 50s era movie abour P-47 pilots in England, one of the pilots was a real hotshot had fought in the Pacific (I think it implies the Flying Tigers) but who didn't want any responsibility, just wanted to be a pilot. I got the premise but the dialog made it almost unwatchable, just turn down the volume until the props start swinging. Last 3 great air combat movie were 12 O'Clock High, Tora, Tora, Tora and Battle of Britain. And each for different reasons, though TTT and BoB have a lot in common. What's there been since? Flight of the Intruder? Good story if fraught with all the usual internal conflict, though that is what drives the plot. Memphis Belle? Trite sterotypes loosely based on the truth, good to OK visuals. Midway? Let's not go there. Stealth? Excuse me while I heave my guts. Flyboys? I give them high marks for trying. I had not known about the black American fighter pilot, that was very cool to learn about and I researched it a bit. The love story was nauseating. Technicals were good, except for all Fokkers looking the same. Overall a step in the right durection. Still I found the dialog lacking. To me Top Gun was more of a kind of silly Reagan era recruiting movie. Frank on 10/10/2007 11:29 AM Gray Ghost said the following: > >> On Oct 9, 10:26 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > wander far from it no matter how trite it gets. > I read one time, that there is only one of about 9 main plots in any movie ( I may be wrong on the number, but I think it was less than 10). Some may combine more than one of those 9 plots. . > And please, somebody, find someone who can write dialog!!! Whatever happened > to the idea of good dialog that developed characters and advanced the plot. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Frank > SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ > It's much better with the sound turned off. Kind of like the old TV > series Dragnet. > The one thing I always wondered about is if the cockpits of F-14's really shake that much in flight; It was like the crew's ejection seats were sitting on a paint mixer. Pat >> It's much better with the sound turned off. Kind of like the old TV >> series Dragnet. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pat Not that much, but from what I've heard from Tomcat RIOs the ride is a bit "stiff" compared to a Hornet...a baby Hornet. One once commented that the Super Hornet's ride is very "Tomcat like"...that didn't go over well... Signature- Rufus >> It's much better with the sound turned off. Kind of like the old TV >> series Dragnet. > > The one thing I always wondered about is if the cockpits of F-14's > really shake that much in flight; It was like the crew's ejection > seats were sitting on a paint mixer. An did Top Gun-era F-14s *really* have LCD displays like that? As for flicking the LCD fuel gauge to make sure it is reading correctly...! SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >An did Top Gun-era F-14s *really* have LCD displays like that? As for >flicking the LCD fuel gauge to make sure it is reading correctly...! I remember not long after that I was at an Air Display where I got to talk to some F14 crew. According to them, the real back seat instrumentation was still a bit confidential, so they gave the film crew an old ground station radar monitor to plat with! No proof if it's true though. What I do remember was there being about a half-dozen ground crew plus the aircrew behind the barriers meeting the crowd around the F14 and a couple of F15s. You weren't allowed within about 20 feet. Opposite them was an A10 and an F111 with one single pilot watching them. He asked myself and my friend to help him run some access stairs up to the A10 cockpit so people could have a look in... Bit of a difference in attitude between the air-to-air and the ground pounders. And judging from the pilot's attitude (his name was Hicks -it wasn't until later I realised where I'd heard that before - Aliens!) he was playing it up to annoy them... Wulf > What I do remember was there being about a half-dozen ground crew plus > the aircrew behind the barriers meeting the crowd around the F14 and a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the A10 cockpit so people could have a look in... > We had one of the first F-14s in Navy squadron service here in Jamestown, North Dakota back in September 1972 (Western Gear was making the Phoenix missile weapons rails for them) and at that time you were allowed to go right up to the plane and look it over; no guards, no rope enclosure. Pat >> An did Top Gun-era F-14s *really* have LCD displays like that? As for >> flicking the LCD fuel gauge to make sure it is reading correctly...! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Wulf I was once chaperoning a visiting USAF Major that had come into PMTC in an F-15. As I was walking him back to his jet from breakfast, I asked him if he was going to show all these Tomcat jockeys what a real airplane could do on his way out of there. He said no, because that sort of thing had a way of getting back to you...I asked him how he was going to file out, and he said probably just a VFR departure out over the water. At which point I told him to just ask for a VFR departure and climb at his best angle...all these Navy dudes don't know your best angle is 90 degrees...and if they clear you... ...he must have done that, and I missed it going to lunch - but I've never seen so many grumbling Tomcat drivers in one spot since. Signature- Rufus > Enzo Matrix wrote: > An did Top Gun-era F-14s *really* have LCD displays like that? As for > flicking the LCD fuel gauge to make sure it is reading correctly...! What makes me cringe every time I see a replay of Top Gun are the graphics supposedly showing some sort of heads up display. Completely unlike the real thing. When it ' locks on ' and changes color ( and that annoying high pitched sound ). Yeah I know a sidewinder makes some strange growling sounds but at least that would sound real. The DOD could have provided the producers of Top Gun plenty of stock footage of F-5's in the ' cross-hairs ' of F-15's etc. I think it would have fit right in and at least ' looked ' real. But obviously they wanted to use their own graphics. And of course those all black F-5's. Sheesh. That was 20 years ago. I still remember going " Ahh come on ! " in the theater when I saw those F-5's. But hey, what else were they going to use ? I think some sort of cool looking camo job would have looked much better. Chris > And of course those all black F-5's. Sheesh. That was 20 years > ago. I still remember going " Ahh come on ! " in the theater when I > saw those F-5's. But hey, what else were they going to use ? I think > some sort of cool looking camo job would have looked much better. > They were the bad guys so their MiG-28's* were black...no doubt from being from a oil-rich country where the landscape area is covered in crude oil, so the black paint scheme camoflaged them. Now this is odd markings: http://www.airliners.net/photos/middle/6/6/6/0967666.jpg * Yes, they took on the F-14s with some sort of bomber, according to the Soviet designation sequence of odd numbers for fighters and even ones for bombers. This didn't work for the Libyans either when they tried it in Su-22s. :-) Pat > > And of course those all black F-5's. Sheesh. That was 20 years > > ago. I still remember going " Ahh come on ! " in the theater when I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pat Or Mig-23s. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Pat Flannery wrote: > They were the bad guys so their MiG-28's* were black...no doubt from > being from a oil-rich country where the landscape area is covered in > crude oil, so the black paint scheme camoflaged them. > Now this is odd > markings:http://www.airliners.net/photos/middle/6/6/6/0967666.jpg That's a T-38 in an all black paint job because it was assigned to an F-117 squadron. They were used as chase planes and to allow the pilots to keep up their flight hours. I suppose the all black idea was to keep F-117 pilots " In the zone " so to speak. ;-] I have the kit and the decals to do that paint scheme. Chris > That's a T-38 in an all black paint job because it was assigned to > an F-117 squadron. They were used as chase planes and to allow the > pilots to keep up their flight hours. I suppose the all black idea > was to keep F-117 pilots " In the zone " so to speak. ;-] I have > the kit and the decals to do that paint scheme. I thought they used A-7's, very similar in flight model. Hasegawa makes one of their A-7's in just that scheme; dark grey and dark green all over. > tomcervo wrote: > I thought they used A-7's, very similar in flight model. Hasegawa > makes one of their A-7's in just that scheme; dark grey and dark green > all over. You know it's interesting. I remember that kit ( 1/48 ) when it was released back in ( 1984 ? ). I remember that painting on the cover. There was the A-7 you describe and in the background is some sort of exotic plane flying in the distance with a contrail. I always wondered what in the heck that cover painting was all about. Strange all these years later ... we find out that what the pilots who flew the F-117 in secret back then told their families was that they were test flying a new version of the A-7 Corsair as a cover story. But also ... at first F-117 squadrons did use A-7's as chase planes etc. before switching to the T-38. What did the Hasegawa company know back then ? And why would they know anything ? ( I think I hear X-files music in the background ) Chris > You know it's interesting. I remember that kit ( 1/48 ) when it > was released back in ( 1984 ? ). I remember that painting on the > cover. There was the A-7 you describe and in the background is some > sort of exotic plane flying in the distance with a contrail. I always > wondered what in the heck that cover painting was all about. This one: http://dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=HAS07013&print=yes but I think it's 10 years later >tomcervo > http://dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=HAS07013&print=yes > but I think it's 10 years later Yup that's the kit. =] You have to admit it's really a strange painting. No ... I remember the hobby shop and the time I saw that kit. That kit was first released mid 1980's or so. As a side note my father worked at Vought in Grand Prairie, TX. I got to see some of the last A-7's on the production line in the early 80's. Interesting once they completed the fuselage, they had these big jigs that would spin the fueselage around upside down. The purpose I asked ? To let all the junk fall out that was dropped by workers ... nuts, bolts, washers etc. High tech huh ? Chris >> tomcervo >> http://dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=HAS07013&print=yes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > painting. No ... I remember the hobby shop and the time I saw that > kit. That kit was first released mid 1980's or so. It's not really that "strange"...I think it's just another take on take on this Euro scheme that was used on F-4s: http://www.brookhursthobbies.com/camdecals/main.asp?img=32-064 ...but you can cue the music if you think you must. > As a side note my father worked at Vought in Grand Prairie, TX. > I got to see some of the last A-7's on the production line in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Chris They do that with Harriers in final assembly, too. Signature- Rufus > Rufus wrote: > It's not really that "strange"...I think it's just another take on take [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ...but you can cue the music if you think you must. Oh Jeez. I'm talking about the exotic aircraft ( whatever it is ) flying in the background. NOT the A-7 in the foreground. Chris >> Rufus wrote: >> It's not really that "strange"...I think it's just another take on take [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Chris Oh, that...looks like an F-104 to me. Or a Phantom in burner...hard to tell from that image. What's strange about the picture to me is that the A-7 isn't carrying any ordnance and that there are two aircraft in the picture...so yeah, that implies a friendly. Signature- Rufus > Rufus wrote: > Oh, that...looks like an F-104 to me. Or a Phantom in burner...hard to > tell from that image. > What's strange about the picture to me is that the A-7 isn't carrying > any ordnance and that there are two aircraft in the picture...so yeah, > that implies a friendly. Traditionally kits like this would have cover art that would show the aircraft in formation with a wing man etc. That's what was so odd about this cover art. To me this is what I always thought it was in the background ( or something similar ). http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/misc/scifi/eggersf19.htm Keep in mind as Pat is refering too ... this was mid 1980's and common belief was that there was a secret stealth project going on. As I stated earlier what's so amazing about this cover art is that Hasegawa was onto something. Chris > Traditionally kits like this would have cover art that would show > the aircraft in formation with a wing man etc. That's what was so odd [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hasegawa was onto something. > You want to see spooky box art, check out that 1/200th scale combo model of the F-117 and B-2 that DML did. When you first see it, it looks like the two aircraft flying around in a cloudy sunrise...that isn't a sunrise...that's a hydrogen bomb detonating: http://i14.ebayimg.com/05/i/000/b3/f4/0cde_1.JPG Pat > Pat Flannery wrote: > You want to see spooky box art, check out that 1/200th scale combo model > of the F-117 and B-2 that DML did. > When you first see it, it looks like the two aircraft flying around in a > cloudy sunrise...that isn't a sunrise...that's a hydrogen bomb > detonating:http://i14.ebayimg.com/05/i/000/b3/f4/0cde_1.JPG That is wild. Thanks Pat. Chris >> Rufus wrote: >> Oh, that...looks like an F-104 to me. Or a Phantom in burner...hard to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Chris Maybe...but they would have gotten it completely wrong about the afterburner. Signature- Rufus >> http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/misc/scifi/eggersf19.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Maybe...but they would have gotten it completely wrong about the > afterburner. The ones in Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" also had afterburners.... and it didn't make sense then either. The Monogram design was based on a ad from AW&ST for Loral Cooperation, with only the canards being differently shaped (The ones in the Loral design were thin angled fins fins that looked retractable). Pat >>> http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/misc/scifi/eggersf19.htm >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pat I think I remember that one...really wish I could find a larger shot of that box art... Signature- Rufus > Pat Flannery wrote: > > Maybe...but they would have gotten it completely wrong about the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with only the canards being differently shaped (The ones in the Loral > design were thin angled fins fins that looked retractable). Why are you guys thinking afterburners ? To me that just looks like a high altitude contrail. Look at the clouds in the background. And more to the point ... the trail just leads your eyes to the strange craft in the background. If the contrail wasnt there you probably wouldn't notice it. The artist put the contrail in there for that reason. ( anyway that's the way I always looked at it ). Chris >> Pat Flannery wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that reason. ( anyway that's the way I always looked at it ). > Is the A-7 leaving a contrail? It doesn't look like it in the painting. The thing in the background is hard to distinguish but does look like the Monogram/Loral stealth fighter in profile. They did work on contrail reduction on stealth aircraft, but I don't know if it panned out: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4766725.html Pat > Pat Flannery wrote: > Is the A-7 leaving a contrail? It doesn't look like it in the painting. > The thing in the background is hard to distinguish but does look like > the Monogram/Loral stealth fighter in profile. Even if ( what ever it is ) is in afterburner why would it leave a long trail ? An F-15 or F-16 in afterburner doesn't leave a long smoke trail. It's just a clean blue shockwave just behind the exhaust nozzle(s). And the F-117 used the same engines ( F-100 ) as the F-15/ F-16 just WITHOUT the afterburner section. Chris >> Pat Flannery wrote: >> Is the A-7 leaving a contrail? It doesn't look like it in the painting. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Chris A contrail isn't smoke - it's water vapor (like a cloud) formed by the warm jet exhaust condensing the water out of the air. Highly dependent on altitude, humidity level, and the temperature at altitude. Can happen with or without an afterburner...in this case the artist put one in, probably to infer that whatever-it-is is flying at a much higher altitude than the A-7 in the foreground. Since he isn't conning. Signature- Rufus > Rufus wrote: > A contrail isn't smoke - it's water vapor (like a cloud) formed by the > warm jet exhaust condensing the water out of the air. Highly dependent > on altitude, humidity level, and the temperature at altitude. I'm well aware the difference between a smoke trail and a contrail. The main products of Aviation/Jet fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor. The Jet exhaust isn't " condensing the water out of the air ". At high altitudes water vapor from the jet exhaust emerges into a cold environment. ( Usually above 26,000 feet and temps at - 40 F ) The vapor then condenses into tiny water droplets and/or desublimates into ice. These millions of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals form the contrails. > in this case the artist put > one in Didn't I already say that ? At first you guys say Afterburning, then I say no it looks like a contrail. Then Pat points out that the A-7 isn't coning. Then you point out that you think you see an orange plume behind the ( thingy ). Then I point out that the F-117 ( or stealth thingy in the background ) didn't even have an afterburner anyway ( I suppose ). Where is this all going ? Chris >> Rufus wrote: >> A contrail isn't smoke - it's water vapor (like a cloud) formed by the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > droplets and/or desublimates into ice. These millions of tiny water > droplets and/or ice crystals form the contrails. To very small extent, but not entirely. Even prop planes leave contrails if the atmospheric conditions are right - go look at some pictures of B-17s or B-29s in high altitude formation. Often times contrails form and attach at points on an airplane where there aren't any engines at all. >> in this case the artist put >> one in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Chris No - there's both in the artwork. There is a contrail behind the orange afterburner glow on the far jet...both are represented, guess you missed that. Someone has conjectured a conspiracy theory that supposedly someone at Hasagawa was/might have been onto something in the then covert stealth program, as evidenced by this piece of box art...and like most conspiracy theories, it's going nowhere. Slowly... Signature- Rufus > Rufus wrote: > > To very small extent, but not entirely. Even prop planes leave > contrails if the atmospheric conditions are right - Hey ... notice I said Aviation/jet fuel ... I was refering to AvGas in prop planes as well as Jet fuel. > Someone has conjectured a conspiracy theory that supposedly someone at > Hasagawa was/might have been onto something in the then covert stealth > program, as evidenced by this piece of box art...and like most > conspiracy theories, it's going nowhere. Slowly... I AM THE ONE who put forth the " conspiracy " that you are now calling it. Okay let's cover the bases again. It was mid 1980's when that kit was released. Well before any official acknowledgment of the Stealth fighter. That's not an A-7 in the background. It's not an F-104 in afterburner either. WHAT IS IT THEN ? Why would an artist for Hasegawa put it there ? A new type of A-7 WAS the cover story for what F-117 pilots told their family's they were flying. ( There was a proposed Vought YA-7F model at the time and there were two prototypes built ) A-7's were also used by F-117 squadrons as Pat also suggested. Why do you think that all leads to nowhere ? Did the artist for Hasegawa put something weird in the background of this A-7 painting just on a lark ( for the fun of it ) ? Chris > A-7's were also used by F-117 squadrons as Pat also > suggested. > I'd still like to see a photo of that decoy pod with the flashing red beacon on it, as it would make a interesting model subject. Here's Col. Allen Whitley's description of it from Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" "Before that base was ready (Tonopah), and before we had enough fighters ready to fly (F-117s), our newly formed squadron took over a remote corner of Nellis Air Force Base and spent our time flying A-7 attack fighters. The A-7s became our cover. In early 1984 we deployed in A-7s to Kunsan Air Base in South Korea, to test our deployment procedures to the Far East ahead of the F-117A squadron that would be sent there. the word was purposely leaked that our A-7 fighters were carrying supersecret atomic antiradar devices that would render the aircraft invisible to enemy defenses. To maintain the deception we outfitted each plane with old napalm canisters painted black and flashing a red danger light in the rear. It carried a radiation warning tag over an ominous looking slot on which was painted: 'Reactor Cooling Fill Port.' When we deployed carrying these bogus devices, Air Police closed down the base and ringed the field with machine gun-toting jeeps. They forced all the runway crews to turn their backs on our airplanes as they taxied past and actually had them spread-eagled on the deck with their eyes closed till we took off. Real crazy stuff, but the deception actually worked." Some of the stories in Ben Rich's book don't quite line up with history, and I wonder if they _were_ playing around with a ion cloud stealth system mounted in a pod (we'd tried out the ion cloud concept on the SR-71 a couple decades before that under Project KEMPSTER) The Russians are trying to market theirs, and say it can be attached to any existing aircraft to cut its RCS by 90%. >> A-7's were also used by F-117 squadrons as Pat also >> suggested. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The Russians are trying to market theirs, and say it can be attached to > any existing aircraft to cut its RCS by 90%. ...so you track the leading edge of it and shoot the aircraft down anyway. Signature- Rufus >> Some of the stories in Ben Rich's book don't quite line up with >> history, and I wonder if they _were_ playing around with a ion cloud [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ...so you track the leading edge of it and shoot the aircraft down anyway. Won't work. The ion cloud is shot out ahead of the aircraft and flows back over it in the airflow; in KEMPSTER it came out of emitters in the wing leading edges. The electrically charged air absorbs the radar waves before they strike the aircraft's structure and are reflected by it. Interesting speculation on possible glowing UFO sightings and its use here: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002278.html http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002286.html ...via making the skin of the aircraft a alpha particle emitter by applying a radioactive coating. Pat >>> Some of the stories in Ben Rich's book don't quite line up with >>> history, and I wonder if they _were_ playing around with a ion cloud [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Pat Spewing out charged particles or RF of any kind only makess the aircraft an emitter, and one could just isolate the spectrum of that emitter and lock onto that. Also, such a scheme only protects the rear hemisphere - a ground based system could simply track the leading edge of the cloud, or track "lack of return" to do that if it aids. You don't actually need to target the jet - flak still works. ...but yeah...I could also see that producing some artificial "St. Elmo's fire" in the sky if conditions were right. Then you could just track it optically. Signature- Rufus >> Rufus wrote: >>> To very small extent, but not entirely. Even prop planes leave >> contrails if the atmospheric conditions are right - > > Hey ... notice I said Aviation/jet fuel ... I was refering to AvGas > in prop planes as well as Jet fuel. But that has nothing to do with contrails that originate from wingtips, or areas where there is no combustion (which is the point I was making that you snipped). Besides, jets engines don't just throw off quantities of water vapor due to combustion...not even when they burn water, like a Harrier. >> Someone has conjectured a conspiracy theory that supposedly someone at >> Hasagawa was/might have been onto something in the then covert stealth [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > built ) A-7's were also used by F-117 squadrons as Pat also > suggested. YOU asked for a recap...and you didn't realize that there is both a burner glow, and a contrail depicted in the artwork until I pointed that out. As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care what it is...but from the little picture (wish I could find a bigger one) and the burner glow, and NOT sensing subterfuge, I conjectured it to be an F-104. But it could be anything. Who cares, if what you want is the A-7 model in the box? > Why do you think that all leads to nowhere ? Did the artist for > Hasegawa put something weird in the background of this A-7 painting > just on a lark ( for the fun of it ) ? > > Chris You asked where the thread was going...it was going around in circles. That leads nowhere. Yeah...the artist probably put it in there for just such. Signature- Rufus > Rufus wrote: > But that has nothing to do with contrails that originate from wingtips, > or areas where there is no combustion (which is the point I was making > that you snipped). Besides, jets engines don't just throw off > quantities of water vapor due to combustion...not even when they burn > water, like a Harrier. A jet engine is an internal combustion engine, just like an automobile engine is. In a jet engine, the fuel and an oxidizer combust (or burn) and the products of that combustion are exhausted through a narrow opening at high speed. Modern jet engine fuel is primarily kerosene. Kerosene, a flammable hydrocarbon oil, is a fossil fuel. Burning fossil fuels primarily produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). Other major emissions are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen oxide (NO2), which together are called NOx, sulfur oxides (SO2), and soot. > YOU asked for a recap...and you didn't realize that there is both a > burner glow, and a contrail depicted in the artwork until I pointed that > out. I don't see a burner glow. It's hard to even define the shape of the ' craft ' in the background. If there was an afterburner on this thing where would it be coming from. The contrail is obvious ... I don't know why you think you pointed that out to me. > As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care what it is...but from the > little picture (wish I could find a bigger one) and the burner glow, and > NOT sensing subterfuge, I conjectured it to be an F-104. But it could > be anything. Who cares, if what you want is the A-7 model in the box? Mostly it's just nostalgia for me. That was 20 or so years ago when that kit was released. I just remember the cover art being really odd ( like what in the heck is that supposed to be in the background ? ) If you " dont really care " then fine. > You asked where the thread was going...it was going around in circles. > That leads nowhere. Yeah...the artist probably put it in there for just > such. It goes around in circles because you bring up extraneous things like ' contrails that originate from wingtips ' and ' Harriers burning water ' and ' Even prop planes leave contrails ' . Chris >> Rufus wrote: >> But that has nothing to do with contrails that originate from wingtips, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (NO) and nitrogen oxide (NO2), which together are called NOx, sulfur > oxides (SO2), and soot. A jet engine is a very efficient combustor - I used to design them. They don't emit water vapor in the quantities you would suggest. They just don't. Period. >> YOU asked for a recap...and you didn't realize that there is both a >> burner glow, and a contrail depicted in the artwork until I pointed that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thing where would it be coming from. The contrail is obvious ... I > don't know why you think you pointed that out to me. You need to look really close, and click on the picture to enlarge it - you'll see a break in the trail. The initial part is orange, then there is a small patch of blue, and then the white contrail begins. Where the afterburner is coming from is obvious, and that's why I pointed out the discrepancy in the conjecture. >> As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care what it is...but from the >> little picture (wish I could find a bigger one) and the burner glow, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ( like what in the heck is that supposed to be in the background ? ) > If you " dont really care " then fine. The only "odd" thing I see in it is that the A-7 isn't carrying any ordnance. >> You asked where the thread was going...it was going around in circles. >> That leads nowhere. Yeah...the artist probably put it in there for just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Chris None of that is extraneous - it amplifies my points in the argument. And it's all true. Signature- Rufus > Rufus wrote: > A jet engine is a very efficient combustor - I used to design them. > They don't emit water vapor in the quantities you would suggest. They > just don't. Period. That I suggest ? I just quickly found this site. Even has a formula. Maybe if you used to design engines you could figure the formula out : http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/normalcon.html > You need to look really close and click on the picture to enlarge it - > you'll see a break in the trail. The initial part is orange, then there > is a small patch of blue, and then the white contrail begins. Where the > afterburner is coming from is obvious, and that's why I pointed out the > discrepancy in the conjecture. I've looked enough thank you. At 400% zoom even. You don't even know what the craft is supposed to represent, its shape, what kind of engines it uses ... but its obvious to you that there is an afterburner ? > The only "odd" thing I see in it is that the A-7 isn't carrying any > ordnance. Strange craft in the background. No big deal. No ordinance ... Holy Cow ! For your information the kit did not have any ordinance. Only fuel tanks and bomb racks. > > It goes around in circles because you bring up extraneous things > > like ' contrails that originate from wingtips ' and ' Harriers burning > > water ' and ' Even prop planes leave contrails ' . > > None of that is extraneous - it amplifies my points in the argument. > And it's all true. When the subject is a painting showing a strange craft in the background streaking across the sky in level flight leaving a contrail ... then yeah I would say that visible vortices such as those that come off of an F-16 or F-18 during hard manuvers ... Harriers using water injection to get extra power and cooling when hovering ... and B-17's leaving contrails when I'm well aware of how contrials form ... is extraneous. Chris >> Rufus wrote: >> A jet engine is a very efficient combustor - I used to design them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/normalcon.html I didn't say that they weren't made up of water, or water vapor - I said that the predominance of that water comes out of the atmosphere and not the engine - and I stand by that. And even your citation points out the similarity to clouds, just like I did... And their equation is pretty stochastic - it doesn't have much to do with burning jet fuel (or even avgas) specifically. >> You need to look really close and click on the picture to enlarge it - >> you'll see a break in the trail. The initial part is orange, then there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > engines it uses ... but its obvious to you that there is an > afterburner ? Yes - because of the orange glow represented in the art work ahead of the contrail. The artist has very definitely represented a jet aircraft in some stage of afterburner...I don't care "what kind" of aircraft it is. That's what he painted. I only pointed out that he got it wrong, in that an F-117 doesn't have afterburners. >> The only "odd" thing I see in it is that the A-7 isn't carrying any >> ordnance. > > Strange craft in the background. No big deal. No ordinance ... Holy > Cow ! For your information the kit did not have any ordinance. Only > fuel tanks and bomb racks. Combat aircraft, with no ordnance loaded...how many models of combat aircraft with painted box art have you come across that have been depicted without weapons under wing? I can't think of any...so yeah, to me that's odd. Lots of Hasagawa kits come with art depicting ordnance, only to have drop tanks only supplied (or the wrong ords) once you open the kit. So yeah, that and only that calls me to wonder what the ar |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message