Kerosene Cowboys - Movie
Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:39 pm
It has Mario Van Peebles in it, it has to be good! 
http://gizmodo.com/5324880/the-sukhoi-s ... oplay=true
http://gizmodo.com/5324880/the-sukhoi-s ... oplay=true
Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:58 pm
Holy Cow, it says the movie producers paid the Russians money to eject out of a perfectly good Su-35 at Mach 2. I don't believe it. Here is the supposed picture. Is it real or fake? I say fake, but I'll keep my reasons to myself until we debate this.
Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:17 pm
Looks fake to me.
Jerry
Jerry
Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:21 pm
I'd bet money on fake. How did it get below the leading edge of the wing, and the trapeze behind him would never fit in that plane!
Re: Kerosene Cowboys - Movie
Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:31 pm
Jesse C. wrote:It has Mario Van Peebles in it, it has to be good!
http://gizmodo.com/5324880/the-sukhoi-s ... oplay=true
From AN-2s to L-39s. But at least it appears they did a fair amount of actual air to air footage, rather than just a solid movie of computer graphics junk.
The one scene with the AN-2 is funny, as it's so slow, a guy running reeealy hard can catch up to it and get in.
Gary
Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:34 pm
Unfortunately, it looks like they put every shot of the aircraft in the trailer.
Hope the rest is worth seeing.
Jerry
Hope the rest is worth seeing.
Jerry
Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:11 pm
It looks like a typical modern aviation movie - great flying scenes, bad actors and a poor script. Even though the movie will probably suck, I'll still go see it just for the flying alone.
Should we call this one, "Iron Eagle V"?
Should we call this one, "Iron Eagle V"?
Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:18 pm
Obergrafeter wrote:I'd bet money on fake. How did it get below the leading edge of the wing, and the trapeze behind him would never fit in that plane!
This is going to sound more crass than it is intended, but um...have you ever seen someone eject from an SU-35 up close, at altitude and speed to know what that would look like in stop-action?
Who knows exactly what it looks like...but if the rocket blast from the seat is taken in relation to the forward motion of the aircraft (i.e. the seat is moving in a different direction than the plane) it's very possible that the rocket blast could have been to the left side of the fuselage, in front of the leading edge of the wing, and as the motion progressed, the leading edge of the wing went 'through' the plume.
And for the trapeze...I'm pretty sure that on that unit, it telescopes out as part of the ejection sequence in order to stabilize the seat as the chutes deploy.
Hacker might have a better spin on this.
Not saying it's NOT fake (all the swirls of smoke and discoloration around the seat/trail look kind of suspicious)...but I'm certainly admitting it's plausable.
At least it's got an AN-2 in it...
Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:24 pm
...but I'm sure it's no Thunder Over Reno or anything.
Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:35 pm
I'm saying it looks suspicious for lots of reasons. First of all, just look at the stabilators. They are in almost full pitch nose down. Every airplane that I know of states when its time for ejection, to always zoom climb the airplane prior to punching out. Why would the Su-35 suddenly pitch down at ejection, especially considering that it would make it much more difficult for the camera chase plane to follow it? If they were up at altitude, I would assume that the plane would probably be in level flight, if for no other reason, than to make it easier to film from the camera platform. Also, if the plane was really traveling Mach 2, I doubt there would be that "wispy" cloud looking smoke in front of the seat and it's flight path. That pilot and seat would probably be forming it's own shock wave for the milliseconds it takes to slow to subsonic speed.
The whole area of the flames and wispy smoke, just look photoshopped to me to probably conceal the cut and paste aspect of that. In addition, look at that front seat pilot. His head is almost equal to the top of the front windscreen. If he was flying AT ALL, especially at Mach 2, he would have that seat bottomed out on the cockpit floor. You don't want your head ANYWHERE close to the slipstream - no matter what speed!
Also, what about the extreme physiological threats against both pilots there? Ejection is an extreme act, likely to cause serious flailing injuries, as well as other complications. Pilots before have been paralyzed and even killed because of the extreme threats from a high speed ejection. A lot of pilots have serious debilitating spinal cord injuries from such ejections. What about the flying pilot? In order to fly Mach 2, wouldn't they have to be flying up high, probably above 25,000 feet or so? Wouldn't the extreme hypothermia and high risk for life-threatening evolved gas disorders, like the bends and decompression sickness be great? Even if they were at above Mach 2, down lower where the physiological effects are less, can the Su-35 even attain Mach 2+ at low altitudes, like 10,000 ft or so? Maybe Randy can pipe in here, but I somehow doubt the plane is capable of that.
If I were to guess I would say that the Su-35 was probably photographed on the ground because of the raised position of the front pilot's seat and the fact that the stabilators are drooped down. This is common on most fighters because as soon as hydraulics are taken off of the actuators, natural gravity takes over and the stab's go to a full or nearly full nose down pitch position. The ejecting pilot is probably a "cut and paste" from another picture. It just looks pasted on there, due to the unrealistic flames and wispy smoke pattern mentioned above.
Well, that's my interpretation of the picture, anyone else?
The whole area of the flames and wispy smoke, just look photoshopped to me to probably conceal the cut and paste aspect of that. In addition, look at that front seat pilot. His head is almost equal to the top of the front windscreen. If he was flying AT ALL, especially at Mach 2, he would have that seat bottomed out on the cockpit floor. You don't want your head ANYWHERE close to the slipstream - no matter what speed!
Also, what about the extreme physiological threats against both pilots there? Ejection is an extreme act, likely to cause serious flailing injuries, as well as other complications. Pilots before have been paralyzed and even killed because of the extreme threats from a high speed ejection. A lot of pilots have serious debilitating spinal cord injuries from such ejections. What about the flying pilot? In order to fly Mach 2, wouldn't they have to be flying up high, probably above 25,000 feet or so? Wouldn't the extreme hypothermia and high risk for life-threatening evolved gas disorders, like the bends and decompression sickness be great? Even if they were at above Mach 2, down lower where the physiological effects are less, can the Su-35 even attain Mach 2+ at low altitudes, like 10,000 ft or so? Maybe Randy can pipe in here, but I somehow doubt the plane is capable of that.
If I were to guess I would say that the Su-35 was probably photographed on the ground because of the raised position of the front pilot's seat and the fact that the stabilators are drooped down. This is common on most fighters because as soon as hydraulics are taken off of the actuators, natural gravity takes over and the stab's go to a full or nearly full nose down pitch position. The ejecting pilot is probably a "cut and paste" from another picture. It just looks pasted on there, due to the unrealistic flames and wispy smoke pattern mentioned above.
Well, that's my interpretation of the picture, anyone else?
Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:46 pm
Ah, I knew it! Thanks for setting the record straight, Randy!
Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:47 pm
Good job of photoshopping the sky out and making it look like it is on the ground Randy, Keep it up and some of these guys will actually believe it was photoed on the ground, when we all know they were really going Mach 2 and photoed from the 152 chase ship.
Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:12 pm
One other point on the "flying" version of that - you can see the main gear door is opened - apparently forgotten or overlooked by the Photoshop expert.
Ryan
Ryan
Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:39 pm
RyanShort1 wrote:One other point on the "flying" version of that - you can see the main gear door is opened - apparently forgotten or overlooked by the Photoshop expert.
Ryan
Where is that Ryan? I don't see what you are talking about.