Pensacola: Wings of Gold - What a Joke!!!
L. Kat
Now I'm not usually one to criticise, but WOW did anyone else check out the
T.V. show "Pensacola: Wings of Gold" last night? Understanding that T.V.
budgets may be tight when it comes to putting on anything military is one
thing, but MAN, this show was really BAD!! I don't know about anyone else, but
I only made it to about the 20 minute mark before I had to turn it off. Even if
you knew NOTHING about military aircraft, you could still spot the blatant
blunders. Now I usually try to turn a blind eye to such things when watching
Hollywood's versions of the Air Force, but the gaffs they made in this show
were just to hard to miss. The first major foul-up was the formation flying
scenes. They had lots of real nice-angle camera shots of the F-18's in
formation. To bad that every time the shot went to the next angle, it was a
completely different formation of F-18's. Some showing real old looking
footage, some showing nice brand new looking footage. Next was one of the
biggest "military show" boo-boo's i've ever seen. A pilot was ejecting out of
his F-18. It showed a camera view, from inside the cockpit, of the pilot
pulling the ejector cord and the seat starting it's departure from the
aircraft. Then the next sequence showed the rest of the departure from an
outside view, only the aircraft was no longer an F-18?????? Somehow it was now
an A-10 Thunderbolt. Shesh that was hard to swallow. I knew I would be watching
this show much longer, but it was now turning into a game. A few minutes later
in the show, another scene showed cockpit sequence with pilot flying another
F-18. At the end of this scene the pilot cranked the stick into a hard left
turn, quickly the shot moved to outside of the aircraft only to see the F-18
bank sharply to the right!! The final straw was when the rescue team reached
the crash site of the earlier F-18 (or was it an A-10, who really knows at this
point). One of the main tasks that the rescue team had was to recover some kind
of aircraft stealth unit. Well, seconds after walking upon the crash site the
team picked up the stealth unit off the top of a pile of debris (off course
without a scratch on it). It was at this point that I couldn't take it anymore,
and off went the T.V.
I hope I haven't bored you all to death with my rantings, but I just had to
mention something about this show. And if any of you Hollywood Air Force types
are reading this, please get out of your studios once in while and at least TRY
to put some realism into your work.
Lyle Katchur
Red Deer, Alberta
Canada
Phil DeBecker
L. Kat wrote:
>
> Now I'm not usually one to criticise, but WOW did anyone else check out the
> T.V. show "Pensacola: Wings of Gold" last night?
<snip>
I didn't see it, but I'm not overly surprised. I wonder if there has
ever been a realistic *modern* aviation-oriented film or TV series? I
mean, Top Gun was pretty but a complete joke as far as realism. Same
with TV shows - they all seem about as good as Supercarrier (anyone
remember?), the series back in '87 that tried to capitalize on Top Gun's
success.
About the only modern-aviation-oriented film I can recall which didn't
make me wince was HBO's "By Dawn's Early Light", sort of a non-comedy
version of Dr. Strangelove. They got a lot right - I remember being
impressed when the Buff is intercepted by Navy fighters from the USS
Coral Sea, and when you get the outside view, there was the B-52 flanked
by F-18's. But other than that, the situation is pretty grim.
Phil
Massa
And how about the movie with Kurt Douglass and Steven Segal, when the whole
special forces group (at least 7 people) fit into the F-117!
BUFDRVR <buf...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970926153...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >About the only modern-aviation-oriented film I can recall which didn't
> make me wince was HBO's "By Dawn's Early Light"
>
> Well it made alot of bomber and tanker guys wince. BUFF guys thought it
> was an absolute riot. The EW gets killed during the detonation shock
> arrival, and the gunner takes over his job. How about the B-52 big
enough
> to have a wrestling match in. It goes on and on......
>
> BUFDRVR
>
Damien Burke
On 26 Sep 1997 16:23:14 GMT, "Massa" <som...@somewhere.net>
wrote:
>And how about the movie with Kurt Douglass and Steven Segal, when the whole
>special forces group (at least 7 people) fit into the F-117!
Yeah, crazy. You can fit at least 20 guys back there :)
At least Broken Arrow went for a fictional aircraft so they
could safely go for some dramatic license.
I was *almost* impressed by Air Force One - things like AMRAAMs
climbing after launch at maximum range were nice, but they blew
it with the exploding KC-135 (-10?) and the UFO-like F-15s
(strike me dead if I'm wrong, but engaging reheat doesn't make
you zap off into the distance quite that fast, unless the camera
ship is a Harrier and VIFFing!).
--
Damien Burke (replace d.c.u in address with demon.co.uk if replying)
British military aircraft page: http://www.jetman.demon.co.uk/tal/
Damien Burke
On 26 Sep 1997 15:31:38 GMT, buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>About the only modern-aviation-oriented film I can recall which didn't
>make me wince was HBO's "By Dawn's Early Light"
>
>Well it made alot of bomber and tanker guys wince. BUFF guys thought it
>was an absolute riot. The EW gets killed during the detonation shock
>arrival, and the gunner takes over his job. How about the B-52 big enough
>to have a wrestling match in. It goes on and on......
Yesss... the book was a bit better in this respect (Trinity's
Child - well worth a read).
BUFDRVR
>About the only modern-aviation-oriented film I can recall which didn't
make me wince was HBO's "By Dawn's Early Light"
Well it made alot of bomber and tanker guys wince. BUFF guys thought it
was an absolute riot. The EW gets killed during the detonation shock
arrival, and the gunner takes over his job. How about the B-52 big enough
to have a wrestling match in. It goes on and on......
BUFDRVR
Foxeye
fox...@mindspring.com wrote:
Yes, the Navy does have some F16's, they use as aggressor type
aircraft in their Top Gun training program, they are F16N's
foxeye
"Michel Renaud" <ren...@synapse.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:07:52 -0400, Phil DeBecker wrote:
>
>:>> Now I'm not usually one to criticise, but WOW did anyone else check out the
>:>> T.V. show "Pensacola: Wings of Gold" last night?
>
>Yep... don't you just love those series or movies that show a F-14 taking off, suddenly turns into a F-18 or
>F-16? I saw the movie Turbulence (I think that was the title) and they did something like that. As for
>Pensacola, well, unless I missed something, the Navy and the Marines do not fly F-16s, do they? They had
>some in the last episode (including the show opening... which we should see in each episode.)
>
>I like JAG - although it's not dedicated to the subject, in the episodes I've seen they at least keep the same
>type of plane in the different sequences - a F-14 remains a F-14. And the quality of the show itself far
>surpasses Pensacola.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Michel Renaud Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>Internet: ren...@synapse.net
>WWW: http://www.synapse.net/~renamic
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Fox...@www.mindspring.com
By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address, the
sender agrees to pay a $100 flat fee to the recipient for proofreading
services. Take the www out of address to send email.
Michel Renaud
Brad J. Boss
Foxeye wrote:
>
> fox...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Yes, the Navy does have some F16's, they use as aggressor type
> aircraft in their Top Gun training program, they are F16N's
> foxeye
I thought I'd read somewhere that the Navy and Marines discontinued the
use of the F-16N's after they developed cracks in the wings due to
multiple daily engagements, and were going to use F/A-18's and F-14's,
as adversaries. Anyone want to bring us up to speed on this?
B. Boss
Orval R. Fairbairn
In article <342BCF...@ix.NOSPAM.netcom.com>, Phil DeBecker
<debe...@ix.NOSPAM.netcom.com> wrote:
> L. Kat wrote:
> >
> > Now I'm not usually one to criticise, but WOW did anyone else check out the
> > T.V. show "Pensacola: Wings of Gold" last night?
>
> <snip>
>
> I didn't see it, but I'm not overly surprised. I wonder if there has
> ever been a realistic *modern* aviation-oriented film or TV series? I
> mean, Top Gun was pretty but a complete joke as far as realism. Same
> with TV shows - they all seem about as good as Supercarrier (anyone
> remember?), the series back in '87 that tried to capitalize on Top Gun's
> success.
>
> About the only modern-aviation-oriented film I can recall which didn't
> make me wince was HBO's "By Dawn's Early Light", sort of a non-comedy
> version of Dr. Strangelove. They got a lot right - I remember being
> impressed when the Buff is intercepted by Navy fighters from the USS
> Coral Sea, and when you get the outside view, there was the B-52 flanked
> by F-18's. But other than that, the situation is pretty grim.
>
That one was pretty bad, too. They showed old Titans sticking out of the
ground, after the missile base had been taken over by a deranged general
threatening to launch. All they had to do was roll up some artillery and
take out the missile, before it was launched. End of story.
--
Board member, Ca Pilots' Assn, CRAMP,
EAA Life member
Johnson Rocket Restoration Flying
Mustang IIR under construction
JLSokolsky
>I thought I'd read somewhere that the Navy and Marines discontinued the
>use of the F-16N's after they developed cracks in the wings due to
>multiple daily engagements, and were going to use F/A-18's and F-14's,
>as adversaries. Anyone want to bring us up to speed on this?
Correct. The USN retired several, if not all of their F-16Ns several
years ago. Airframe stress was a primary reason. I do not know what jets
they replaced the F-16s with, but I think they were F/A-18s.
John "Squeaks" Sokolsky
Kevin013
As for realisitc aviation-oriented films, I'd have to say Vienna's
productions on the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds ("Around the World at the
Speed of Sound" and "Thunder over the Pacific") are the best I've seen,
featuring extensive interviews with the pilots and others. Everything else,
I take with a grain of salt...
Damian, that exploding tanker in Air Force One was a KC10. I don't think
that was all that realisitc, either. Now, what about the transfer of
personnel from one plane to another in midair at the end of the movie?
Agreements welcomed. Constructive criticisms considered. Flames ignored.
Kevin W. Hecteman
kevi...@aol.com
"The legacy of the U.S. military is nothing less than your freedom."--Rush
Limbaugh
Damien Burke
On 27 Sep 1997 07:52:40 GMT, kevi...@aol.com (Kevin013) wrote:
>Damian, that exploding tanker in Air Force One was a KC10. I don't think
>that was all that realisitc, either. Now, what about the transfer of
>personnel from one plane to another in midair at the end of the movie?
I was willing to suspend disbelief on the basis that they seem
to do an *awful lot* of weird stuff with C-130s for some reason
:)
Hell, at least if was the Herc with the nose pincers and the
wires from the nose to wingtips to fend off near-misses - I was
expecting them to show how that was used but obviously not.
Martin/Jennifer Keenan
lk...@telusplanet.net (L. Kat) wrote:
> To bad that every time the shot went to the next angle, it was a
>completely different formation of F-18's. Some showing real old looking
>footage, some showing nice brand new looking footage. Next was one of the
>biggest "military show" boo-boo's i've ever seen. A pilot was ejecting out of
>his F-18. It showed a camera view, from inside the cockpit, of the pilot
>pulling the ejector cord and the seat starting it's departure from the
>aircraft. Then the next sequence showed the rest of the departure from an
>outside view, only the aircraft was no longer an F-18?????? Somehow it was now
>an A-10 Thunderbolt. Shesh that was hard to swallow. I knew I would be watching
>this show much longer, but it was now turning into a game. A few minutes later
>in the show, another scene showed cockpit sequence with pilot flying another
>F-18. At the end of this scene the pilot cranked the stick into a hard left
>turn, quickly the shot moved to outside of the aircraft only to see the F-18
>bank sharply to the right!! The final straw was when the rescue team reached
>the crash site of the earlier F-18 (or was it an A-10, who really knows at this
>point). One of the main tasks that the rescue team had was to recover some kind
>of aircraft stealth unit. Well, seconds after walking upon the crash site the
>team picked up the stealth unit off the top of a pile of debris (off course
>without a scratch on it). It was at this point that I couldn't take it anymore,
>and off went the T.V.
Essentially, I guess it depended on what stock footage happened to be
available. I think I know the film of the A-10 ejection you're
referring to. Maybe there wasn't any film of an F-18 ejection
available, and they had to use what they could get, given that
actually staging an ejection (and consequent loss of plane) might kind
of wreck the budget..
Remember that everyone isn't as nutty about aircraft as the
inhabitants of this newsgroup. Lots of people probably watched that
sequence without noticing a thing. At airshows, I run into people all
the time who can't tell a T-38 from an F-117. I've heard parents
telling their kids absolute crap about planes, perhaps because they
want to _look_ like they know.
My personal favorite bloopers along these lines are the flying
sequences in the old "Six Million Dollar Man" TV series (not the
opening sequence, which is consistent, and is actually a real crash).
One particular sequnce I can recall shows Steve Austin walking up to a
(worn out looking) F-104. Then you see a T-38 take off. Then there
is a variety of different scenes in the air of different F-4s and (I
think) F-101s in a variety of different paint schemes. Then, you see
the T-38 landing, and him walking away from the F-104. All depending
on what stock film was available.
Martin
LCDR1635
>
>I thought I'd read somewhere that the Navy and Marines discontinued the
>use of the F-16N's
AFAIK, the F-16Ns are gone. I've seen photos of F-14 adversaries painted
in FLANKER colors as well as FA-18s painted to look like MiG-29s.
BTW, if you think "PENSACOLA..." is bad, you should take a look at SOLDIER
OF FORTUNE, INC. A true stinker.
John H. Eckhardt
It's not my spelling or grammar
that's so bad. It's my typing.
Greg Shorts
My downstairs nieghbor was working on the Pensacola series and was
overjoyed when he got transferred over to shooting Silk Stalkings. He told
me about 2 months ago about this real stinker he was working on -
Pensacola.
Greg
Kristan Roberge
lk...@telusplanet.net (L. Kat) wrote:
>
> Now I'm not usually one to criticise, but WOW did anyone else check out the
> budgets may be tight when it comes to putting on anything military is one
> thing, but MAN, this show was really BAD!!
This may come as a surprise to you, but its all FICTION!!!
ACFT1JOHNK
>fox...@mindspring.com wrote:
>Yes, the Navy does have some F16's, they use as aggressor type
>aircraft in their Top Gun training program, they are F16N's
>foxeye
Sorry, foxeye, but your data is outdated again. The USN got
rid of all there F-16N's about two years ago. One is at PNAS in
the museum. others to storage at DM.
Mike Kopack
Not anymore, the F-16N's have been retired for years.
Brad J. Boss wrote:
> Foxeye wrote:
> >
> > fox...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Yes, the Navy does have some F16's, they use as aggressor type
> > aircraft in their Top Gun training program, they are F16N's
> > foxeye
>
> I thought I'd read somewhere that the Navy and Marines discontinued
> the
> use of the F-16N's after they developed cracks in the wings due to
> multiple daily engagements, and were going to use F/A-18's and F-14's,
>
> as adversaries. Anyone want to bring us up to speed on this?
>
> B. Boss
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
How about the scenes from "Pacific Blue" this weekend, where officer
Chris Kelly was pulled back to active duty (Navy) to testify against a
Captain? Supposedly she dumped a F/A 18, but the crash footage was of
an A-10 as well- could be same production outfit?
ck
On 28 Sep 1997 05:31:27 GMT, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
Member, PGBFH
KC5EVN
Email address dump file for spam
reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net
Spam.tek.com.....
I treat this show like the robots on Mystery Science Theater(MST); I watch and
make comments and wisecracks at each 'deviation' from reality.Just like a
Stallone or Schwartzenegger movie!
Jim Yanik,NRA member.
Webmaster
Actually the agressor squadron in Key West was using the F-16Ns up until
about a year ago, and I am pretty sure they are still IN the inventory.
Even flight surgeons were able to get rides for aerophysiology training.
Mike Kopack wrote:
--
NavalAir Online A Web Site for
Aviation Enthusiasts
http://www.navalair.com E-Mail us at:
webm...@navalair.com
Contact: Ray Schenk & Kevin Blenkhorn
c/o Lead Dog, Incorporated
P.O. Box 64098
Virginia Beach, VA 23467-4098
James Wilkins
In article <60fbm4$f...@priv-sys04-le0.agt.net>, lk...@telusplanet.net (L.
Kat) wrote:
> Now I'm not usually one to criticise, but WOW did anyone else check out the
> I only made it to about the 20 minute mark before I had to turn it off.
You got that far? They should change "Wings of Gold" to the ZIP code.
OTOH, JAG seems a lot better as a drama since Catherine Bell joined. She
manages to be a very classy lady and a hard-nosed Marine officer and a
sharp lawyer all at once. She has faults and weaknesses but she faces them
and usually does what's right.
What do you all think of the actor's attempts to portray competent and
dedicated leaders? The CAG, for instance.
I'm in comm, which is different. The few ops people I know are quite a bit
more spontaneous, irreverent, and off-the-wall than TV makes them. Maybe
the audience wouldn't want to know who the military lets loose with loaded
guns.
James Wilkins
je...@mitre.org