Red Tails (2012)

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

In IL-2 the thing is an even bigger stall monkey than the Fw 190 Dora, flying it is guaranteed to get you into a spiraling death in less time than it takes for a 262 to explode on the runway.

Well, while the P-51 hardly won the war, and I'm not really that big a fan of it (The P-39 and P-63, those were awesome!), it worked very well in its intended role as a long range escort fighter.

In IL-2 all planes fly like Russian planes. They have this little lag before they stall, and a tail slide is physically impossible. We're just learning the aerodynamic and flight modeling system. Our biggest leap yet is the fire and forget missile system and having broken the sound barrier.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

In IL-2 all planes fly like Russian planes.

Except the I-16, that one's a UFO.

[HunterICX]

Oh boy...it sure does look like a horrid piece of crap to endure.
like the show Dogfights making it to the big screen *pukes*

You have to view things objectively Apocalypse Now is one of my favorite films ever but I also know that compared to factual Vietnam it is very unrealistic.

Apocalypse now had at least a story that it was telling, developed characters and effort was put in the film.

HunterICX

[Growler]

There's a reason why I'll watch the hoorid movies, though, Hunter - it's so when a kid who has yet to learn better asks about something he saw in the movie, I'll be able to answer with knowlege of what he speaks, and the added benefit of being able to include the truth of the matter.

As to the Mustang debate - OK, it was Yeager's plane. It was sleek, it was smexy, it went fast. And it had a radial engine with dangerously exposed cooling systems that turned it into a lawn dart if they were holed. The early models had rotten visibility and an even worse engine. No one seems to remember that it was a British engine that turned the 'stang from a mediocre performer to a superstar... that owes part of its fame to the fact that it could hang with the other famous a/c of the period, the B17 - which was actually second in performance to the B24.

If I had to pick an a/c to fly, it'd be the FW-190 D-9... for whatever reason, I always thought of that a/c as the Porsche of the sky.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Growler

There's a reason why I'll watch the hoorid movies, though, Hunter - it's so when a kid who has yet to learn better asks about something he saw in the movie, I'll be able to answer with knowlege of what he speaks, and the added benefit of being able to include the truth of the matter.

Perhaps with kids you must make some sacrifice, as you said it might awaken their interest in historical things...it's a bit of a pitty that their introduction is a movie where little effort has been put into to make it a bit more worthwhile to watch for a broader audiences.

HunterICX

[Growler]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Perhaps with kids you must make some sacrifice, as you said it might awaken their interest in historical things...it's a bit of a pitty that their introduction is a movie where little effort has been put into to make it a bit more worthwhile to watch for a broader audiences.

HunterICX

I totally agree, but in lieu of that, I'll take what I can get. And by "kid" I'm really referring to anyone under the age of about 20 years - youthful enough to be interested, but not so young as to not yet possess the cognitive ability to understand and question.

And we must face the truth - the average American (who is, ultimately, the audience that Hollywood created this movie for) has the attention span of a gnat and the memory of a goldfish, so our earnest young hopefuls will already self-identify and stand out above the crowd.

I'll admit a bias to the exceptional - I don't want to babysit, I want to teach.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Growler

And we must face the truth - the average American (who is, ultimately, the audience that Hollywood created this movie for) has the attention span of a gnat and the memory of a goldfish, so our earnest young hopefuls will already self-identify and stand out above the crowd.

Pretty much the same here in Europe if you lose their attention for just a short bit they're back on their I-phones/smart phones texting, twittering, hyves, facebook, myspace etc etc. It seems for them things are not going fast enough already

HunterICX

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Growler

And it had a radial engine with dangerously exposed cooling systems that turned it into a lawn dart if they were holed.

It was an inline V-12. Radial engines have no liquid cooling system. Radials are used by the P-47 and all US Naval Aircraft. But you're right that the Mustang had the liquid cooling with all its problems and dangers. So did the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Bf-109.

The early models had rotten visibility

As did the early Spitfire, the early Bf-109 and all Hurricanes.

and an even worse engine.

The Allison wasn't that bad. Just not as good as the Merlin. P-38's did alright with them. Not great, but alright.

No one seems to remember that it was a British engine that turned the 'stang from a mediocre performer to a superstar...

Now you're condescending. Everyone who loves aviation history knows that.

...that owes part of its fame to the fact that it could escort the heavy bombers all the way to Germany and back, which no other single-engined fighter could do.

Fixed

If I had to pick an a/c to fly, it'd be the FW-190 D-9... for whatever reason, I always thought of that a/c as the Porsche of the sky.

I'd pick any of them. I love them all.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It was an inline V-12. Radial engines have no liquid cooling system. Radials are used by the P-47 and all US Naval Aircraft. But you're right that the Mustang had the liquid cooling with all its problems and dangers. So did the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Bf-109.

*checks* *doubletakes* Jeez. I really did type radial there. I know better than that.

As to visibility, all I can say is that until the Merlin went in and the bubble canopy was installed, the -51 was on par with other aircraft at the time - maybe slightly better.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The Allison wasn't that bad. Just not as good as the Merlin. P-38's did alright with them. Not great, but alright.

Not bad in an inline at the time for a single-engine fighter was a heck of a risk to take on. If I had to choose between a single inline Allison versus a Wright-Cyclone - I'd take the radial every time - I'd rather trade some airspeed for some durability.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Now you're condescending. Everyone who loves aviation history knows that.

Not meaning to be condescending at all.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'd pick any of them. I love them all.

True that. My comment was only intended to be taken in the "If I had only one chance to pick what would be under my Christmas tree..." vein.

Originally Posted by Platapus

That is an interesting rational for seeing a movie.

What are the odds of "this kid" meeting you and asking specific questions about the movie that you could only answer if you saw the movie?

Would there be any questions about aircraft that you could not answer without seeing the movie? I don't think so.

If a mythical kid would ever come up to me and say "boy in that movie it was great, that P-40 went straight up and almost broke the sound barrier" I would be able to correct the kid without ever seeing the movie.

I would not have to see the erroneous scene to be able to explain reality to the kid.

Come to think about it, in my 50 years, I can't remember any kid coming up to me and asking me about any historical movie. At least not the kids in my neighbourhood.

So I am not following you on how seeing the movie is necessary to be able to answer any questions some mythical kid might have.

See the movie if you want to, but to justify it as necessary to be prepared to answer some kids question at some time is a bit far fetched.

Guess I shouldn't bother trying. Not my day for communication, apparently.

[Stealhead]

Another over looked key to air to air combat: how well a pilot knows what his aircraft can do at a given altitude situation(turn,roll,climb as well) how well one can get his plane to perform at its given situation best and what his foes mounts abilities are in a given situation.

I always hate when people x was better at climbing x plane was better at picking up French hookers without crabs.....when the truth is each different plane performed different in situations one plane might be better a given altitude at say climbing but worse 10,000ft higher or 10,000ft lower than its "sweet spot" and the opposing plane might be better at those points.The skilled pilot would try to force his foe to fly inside his performance envelope and outside his foes the more the better.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Growler

There's a reason why I'll watch the hoorid movies, though, Hunter - it's so when a kid who has yet to learn better asks about something he saw in the movie, I'll be able to answer with knowlege of what he speaks, and the added benefit of being able to include the truth of the matter.

That is an interesting rational for seeing a movie.

What are the odds of "this kid" meeting you and asking specific questions about the movie that you could only answer if you saw the movie?

Would there be any questions about aircraft that you could not answer without seeing the movie? I don't think so.

If a mythical kid would ever come up to me and say "boy in that movie it was great, that P-40 went straight up and almost broke the sound barrier" I would be able to correct the kid without ever seeing the movie.

I would not have to see the erroneous scene to be able to explain reality to the kid.

Come to think about it, in my 50 years, I can't remember any kid coming up to me and asking me about any historical movie. At least not the kids in my neighbourhood.

So I am not following you on how seeing the movie is necessary to be able to answer any questions some mythical kid might have.

See the movie if you want to, but to justify it as necessary to be prepared to answer some kids question at some time is a bit far fetched.

[Oberon]

The Dora may have been the Porsche...but the P-51 was definitely the Cadillac.

[Sailor Steve]

Comparing a FW-190 to a Porsche? More like a Bentley.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Apocalypse now had at least a story that it was telling, developed characters and effort was put in the film.

HunterICX

That's because it was a film adaptation of a classic, compelling work of literary fiction written by someone who could actually tell a story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness

The fact that it was not made by a bunch of hacks didn't hurt either.

Using the Vietnam conflict as a backdrop instead of colonial Africa was a stroke of genius... it made the film resonate for a late 20th century audience in a way that the original setting might not have done. For American audiences, at least.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

That's because it was a film adaptation of a classic, compelling work of literary fiction written by someone who could actually tell a story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness

The fact that it was not made by a bunch of hacks didn't hurt either.

Using the Vietnam conflict as a backdrop instead of colonial Africa was a stroke of genius... it made the film resonate for a late 20th century audience in a way that the original setting might not have done. For American audiences, at least.

I insist the book is much better.

the story line just doesn't fit as well with a cold war conflict
and i prefer African scenery over se Asian scenery