Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / JustPlaneWrong

Go To

Feb 15th 2019 at 12:55:58 PM •••

Not if this is an example but anytime a V-22 Osprey shows up there always seem to be a larger variant with an extra set of rotors on the tail wing which the actual Osprey lacks Definitely a goof in the first but any attempts to find if the other cases would apply have been inconclusive so not whether to add it or not.

Hide/Show Replies
Feb 16th 2019 at 2:30:46 PM •••

Can you explain your statement more clearly and in plain English, please? If there are any media in which [a variant of Osprey] with an extra set of rotors on the tail wing (per: Not if this is an example but anytime a V-22 Osprey shows up there always seem to be a larger variant with an extra set of rotors on the tail wing which the actual Osprey lacks, whatewer that means) appears, it would be an example of this trope, but it would be necessary to specify in what context such Osprey have been described. (Personally I have to admit I have no real idea what the tail wing [perhaps tailplane -?] was meant to be here, not to mention the rest of the post above.)

Edited by isolato
Mar 11th 2019 at 9:46:49 AM •••

I am specifically talking about the Transformers Film Series and the the tail wing is referring to the rear wing where the tail fins are replaced with an additional set of rotors.

Mar 11th 2019 at 10:17:38 AM •••

I\'ve never noticed this in the Transformers movies, and given that there are multiple V-22 figures from the film series and none of which have such extra rotors (despite the fact that extra rotors would be good for the toy, since they didn\'t license the V-22 and thus are encourage to diverge from the actual design), I\'m going to need you to pull up some video or screenshots.

Edited by Larkmarn
Mar 12th 2019 at 7:30:08 AM •••

From DOTM shows up around 3:47 mark

. If the link doesn\'t work just type in \"transformers 3 osprey scene\". In the first video it should around the 3:47 mark when Starscream attacks.

Edited by Emberfist
Mar 14th 2019 at 3:02:45 PM •••

@Emberfist: I still have no clear idea what you mean by a \"tail wing\", but yes - there is (beginning from 3:43) one Osprey with additional set of rotors mounted on tailplanes - which also seem to have longer span than wings - kind of like tandem wing configuration. As far as I was able to notice, but other Ospreys appearing in the same scene still seem to be the standard ones, so this can be an intentional case of a different variant - an artistic license, perhaps.

(Have no further idea on this, not being a regular Transformers viewer.)

Edited by isolato
Mar 14th 2019 at 5:02:15 PM •••

It\'s just a case of a fictional aircraft.

Mar 16th 2019 at 1:26:20 PM •••

I have no idea what the creators of Transformers meant (there\'s an actual similar looking Quad TiltRotor proposal/project IRL - which can be just a coincidence), but it seems that they know how the standard Osprey looks like, and occasional quadcopter is just a fictional odd-ball/artistic licence/Rule Of Cool-based aircraft, and not a failure of research on the side of creators.

Edited by isolato
Jan 12th 2018 at 6:38:42 AM •••

Question about obscure aircraft.

There is a novel, Victoria, which is already getting a mention here in a moment for radar tomfoolery. In it, a private individual purchases the last Arado Ar 234 (Luftwaffe jet recon/bomber from the last days of WWII) from the Smithsonian, reconditions it to fighting trim and "takes her up sometimes." His role in the story is agreeing to carry and drop a 5 kiloton nuke on Atlanta, Georgia. Now, I already believe the purchase, as well as his keeping it in fuel, are improbable if not precisely this trope. My question is, could the Ar 234, which carried its bombs on external racks, really carry and drop a nuke?

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 13th 2018 at 1:57:55 PM •••

Well - it kind of depends what type of nuke it was meant to be. First generation nuclear weapons are inevitably huge, but some more modern nuclear weapons/warheads can be quite small...ish. Cf.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B57_nuclear_bomb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B28_nuclear_bomb and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W45 - on The Other Wiki.

I'm not familiar with the novel in question (and it does not seem to me to be the kind of book I'd bother to read) and details of the mission, but delivery of a nuke of ~ 5 kt yield can be within Ar-234's capabilities. (Max. payload about 1 500 kgs)

What seems weird to me is the "Arado Ar 234" part - looks like a major case of Rule of Cool, Hollywood Tactics or Putting on the Reich to me.

Edited by isolato
Jan 14th 2018 at 3:16:48 PM •••

Ah, thanks. I knew that you needed specialized bombers back in the day, but so much recently.

The context is a story where about thirty years into the future, the U.S. breaks apart into a series of warring successor states. Texas Rangers break into a New Confederacy, previously USAF, base to steal the nuke, because the Confederacy is too 'weak' to react with proper force when ethnic gangs seize Atlanta and declare it a commune.

Jan 24th 2018 at 7:53:11 AM •••

Actually, another question, same story. The heroes send a wing of WWI wooden biplanes (AN-2) to land troops at a fusion center, content that radar will either not pick it up, or automatic systems will scrub them as false positives. How likely is that?

Jan 26th 2018 at 9:16:59 AM •••

Well, I'm afraid I can not help here much, but few points:

a) Antonov An-2 is a post-WWII design.

b) Its airframe is of all-metal construction (perhaps with some fabric/wooden covering - I'm really not sure here, but I can with a reasonable degree of certainty exclude an all-wooden construction) - and even then wooden construction by itself does not provide some "anti-radar shielding" - and even wooden aircraft typically have substantial metal parts, such as engines. Any claims of stealth-by-design would be wrong.

c) On the ther hand, it's relatively small, slow and agile, so flying it "under the radar coverage" can be a plausible option, even when the radar site is relatively close to its flight path, especially under some advantageous circumstances, e.g. more than average piloting skills and hilly or wooded terrain.

[Allegedly, using An-2s for infiltration of special forces/saboteurs is up to this day tactics envisaged by the Korean People's Army Air Force, but it's perhaps the only air force of the world which still plans to use them in combat transport role (or claims so), chiefly from lack of a better option.]

In conclusion, my opinion is: Claims that An-2 would certainly be not picked by radar is complete nonsense, but it can be plausible to evade it under some really favourable circumstances.

Mar 3rd 2014 at 2:40:34 PM •••

Uh, I'm afraid we have a Just Plane Wrong in the page iamge quote. The X-15 isn't a very maneuvrable aircraft either (it's a rocket plane with wings not much bigger than the F-104).

Hide/Show Replies
Mar 3rd 2014 at 4:07:59 PM •••

Who said anything about maneuverability?

Feb 26th 2012 at 3:42:09 PM •••

How pedantic are we allowing here? The entry for "Superman Returns" where Lex Luthor asks for a quart of gas instead of a quart of "Jet-A/kerosine"— come on man!

Sure Lex Luthor is a genius, but he's not a pilot, and he's also not so socially-awkward that he uses the pedantically correct term (instead of the accepted, understood term) at all times.

Is there a rule-of-thumb in-place?

Edited by blakeyrat
Oct 17th 2010 at 7:22:28 PM •••

Removed:

* This Troper has seen this mistake made on this very Wiki in reference to the opening level of Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction.

If that's true, Timber Wolf, You Could Always Edit It Yourself.

Jul 24th 2010 at 11:55:21 PM •••

'Scuse me while I kiss this guy... In a moment, I'll be deleting the "Buddy Spike" line at the end of the entry for "The Incredibles" under Films — the original poster apparently both mis-heard the soundtrack, and isn't as savvy about U.S. military radio brevity codes as he'd like us to believe. The actual phrase is "Mud Spike", the correct terminology for a warning of a sufrace-to-air missile threat.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 25th 2010 at 4:09:01 AM •••

..Except that she's saying "buddy spike," and even if she were saying "mud spike" it would make even less sense since she'd be warning the people firing the missile at her that someone might fire a surface to air missile at them.

Nov 25th 2012 at 6:26:17 AM •••

Also considering she's probably transmitting on a UHF distress frequency or 121.5 VHF during that evasive flying...

Jan 24th 2014 at 3:17:22 PM •••

Also, with the avionic fit on her Learjet, she wouldn't be able to distinguish whether it was an airborne or ground-based fire-control radar painting her. Her RWR kicked off after the missiles were launched.

Jun 28th 2010 at 8:29:49 AM •••

I've deleted a great deal of this page owing to the problem of Natter- you military otaku are treating this too much like a discussion board. Mind the notice that appears when you try to edit a page and try to avoid arguing with each other.

One note- a lot of the deletions I made weren't for inaccuracy so much as "this has nothing to do with the show". For future reference, if you repurposed the organization of this page so that it was folderized by specific airplanes as opposed to specific types of fiction, it would probably fit in better with the writing style.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 2nd 2010 at 9:12:35 PM •••

Thank you for vandalising the page.

Jul 2nd 2010 at 9:43:35 PM •••

I'll agree that this page was a bit forum-ish but those cuts went far too deep.

Jun 27th 2010 at 10:15:03 PM •••

Moved from Main:

  • One of the most recognisable commercial aircrafts, the Concorde, seems to be relativly unknown and is nearly never used or mentioned in movies. Now i wont be able to sleep till i found out why that is.
    • Well try this for a lullabye: the Concorde is recognizable, but also rare. Only twenty were ever built, and those flown by a recognizable handful of companies (contrasted to over a thousand Boeing 747s, flown by a score of companies around the world: it's much easier to create suspension of disbelief for making up a fictional airline flying a common aircraft). This supersonic speed also came at a steep price (in fuel alone: the 747 is six times as efficient in terms of gallons/passenger-mile), which meant it was used for routes that catered to the business elite and not the average traveler. Contrast the 747, which has been used for just about every conceivable route that could fit it. Finally, where the Concorde is most known for its speed, the 747 is best known for its capacity: a 747 can hold over three times as many to-be-imperiled passengers as a Concorde, passengers that may have come from all walks of life. Therefore, the Concorde is rare in fiction because it's hard to write a story that fits the known characteristics of a Concorde in terms of rarity, route, and consumer base-and there are planes that are much easier to have flying wherever and whenever, and much more likely to have a high-drama passenger load.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report