: ...why does this exist? There's no trope here. It sounds like it should be an index, but, well, it isn't indexing anything. And I can't think of anything that would go in such an index except Reporting Names
, and only when they get them wrong.
, but I saw some potential there and tried to bring it out. Is that better?
: Deleted the Thunderball
example — the aircraft in that film is an accurately portrayed Avro Vulcan
, and is correctly identified as such.
: Vis Godzilla
, there is a land-attack version of the Harpoon- the SLAM (Standoff Land Attack Missile).
Eric Der Konig
: Interesting, I never knew that! I don't plan on rewatching the movie to find out which version is featured, though. So Bad Its Horrible
Text said: "Dr. Strangelove, however, did something similiar deliberately. Major Kong's B-52 casts the shadow of a B-17."
mmgood: Umm, not exactly, that's what film folks sometimes call a CBB ("Could-Be-Better"). The Second Unit that shot all the non-stock aerial footage was operating from some sort of re-purposed large prop plane, true. Sometimes you see the shadow on the ground. But as far as I know, that was merely an exigency of production — a goof. No one had the budget, time or interest to matte in a B-52 shadow. And the USAF had expressly NO interest in providing any support for that movie, so there was no way in heck Kubrick was going to shoot Second Unit from a B-52. I deleted that line.
: I'm not sure why, but I keep getting the feeling that there ought to be some mention here of how you (as a film-maker, I mean) can actually get the U.S. government to provide all the necessary aircraft... if you let them have a certain amount of script control to be sure that the military gets portrayed in a positive manner in your film. I'm sure this has an effect on the type of aircraft they use for shows (e.g., why they might film a WWII scene but use planes that weren't around in that era), but I'm not quite putting my finger on how this might fit on the page. So I leave the info here for others to contemplate.
: We have it- Backed by the Pentagon
I'm putting this on the discussion page because I do not know whether it fits here, especially since I cannot remember the name of the series. I can remember a soap opera here in Korea where there was a very emotional scene at the airport with a woman saying goodbye to her man, who was leaving her and flying to America to start a business. Lots of tears, lots of emotion, and in the next shot, she's standing next to a plate glass window in the departure lounge crying as she watches his plane take off. The plane is clearly labelled in English, "Korean Air Cargo". The director apparently just decided to take footage of the next plane leaving.
Re Incredibles, Helen parr's dialogue.
I'll grant you the IFR cockup.. as she was less than 500ft from the cloud below her. However, re the use of the term "Angels" for "thousand feet", she is operating a military transport aircraft, and is a military pilot. "Angels 2..." for 2000 feet ASL is legitimate and current military usage. Civilian planes don't generally have Radar Warning Receivers and chaff/flare dispensers.
Her second transmission - "Angels 10, 20 miles SSW track east - disengage" - that is 10000 feet QNH from 2000 feet QNH". S He
is below the transition altitude so would not be talking about FL 100
: Vis-a-vis Soviet aircraft and two tails, there aren't many of them with two tails. MiG-25 "Foxbat" and MiG-31 "Foxhound" in the PVO. -29 and Su-27 in both PVO and VVS. The -21 is a single-tailed sort-of delta (you could do that with a Lightning).
The problem with the MacGyver
scenario is that "Foxbats" didn't really hang around the GDR. Should have gone for a "Flogger".
: Removed the line "This is particularly grating since Travolta is a licensed and practiced pilot and should know this.
" from the Battlefield Earth example, because I doubt they teach you what happens if you leave a plane alone for a millenia in piloting school.
: I've redone the introduction to the article and added a couple of examples. Thoughts?