Question about aircraft accuracy in a TV Show

Dara Robinson

I get really tired of Movies and TV shows getting things wrong due to laziness, because it just looks better or simply because this is the way we want it to look so screw reality. I can become quite anal about it at times, hence I am here
I am hoping that some of you experts or enthusiasts can help answer some questions

So was watching Season 3 of Heroes with a friend and was watching one of the episodes where they are travelling in a Military Cargo Plane (I think it was a C-27J Spartan but check out the screenie I have attached and you tell me, but for my question which model of plane does not matter that much tbh) and one of the Characters creates a hole in the side of the plane by accident, the plane then looses cabin pressure and people and things start flying out of the plane.

So here is where I get annoyed. I'm no expert at all but I do listen and learn and over the years I have gotten a fair understanding of how the principal of Aviation works.
So my understanding is that Propeller based Aircraft are slower than their Jet Propelled counterparts no?
I also understand that there is only so high that they can go due to the fact that propellers stop being effective after a certain height due to the thinning of the air hence the reason that most Military Cargo propeller powered planes would not be pressurised, right?
Also, seeing as the accidental hole in the side of the plane was not explosive and the wall seemed to more fall apart than anything else there should have been no explosive decompression... right?
Even if there was some kind of explosive decompression, as I understand it decompression only lasts a few seconds and unless you are right beside the hole will not drag you out (I thank Mythbusters for that bit:P).
From what I understand there are Jet engine based Military Aircraft like the C-17, are they pressurised?
I mean I could go on about the alternatives that could have been used and why the hell it needed to be a military plane if the kinds of Aircraft did not meet the requirements for the scene but anyways, I am just glad you have read this far lol

Thanks in advance to anyone who humours me

View Profile

The aircraft in your link looks more like a Fairchild C-123 than a Spartan.


To answer some of your questions, yes prop aircraft do travel slower than jet aircraft and they do not fly as high. A lot of prop military cargo aircraft, especially the older ones are not pressurised and so are limited in the altitude they fly. No more than 12,000 feet usually otherwise the crew start passing out. However with oxygen masks the crew and aircraft are well able to fly higher.

I dont know how the hole appeared in Heroes but it would cause an initial explosive like decompression(depending on the size of the hole) but like you said this would only last as long as it takes for the pressure inside the aircraft to equalise with the outside pressure, i.e. seconds.
Yes the Boeing C-17 is pressurised.

Think the newer Herc's are pressurised too as is Airbus' new A400M.

Dara Robinson

I am almost 100% sure you got it right, looks exactly right, plus it has the embedded lights on the wing.

The hole on the series was created by an accidental freezing of the hull which then led to it falling apart and opening a hole in the side of the aircraft. Proceeded by 30-60 secs of de-pressurisation and a huge pallet of equipment flying out the hole, plus seats being torn up off the floor and passengers thrown out followed by aircraft crashing due to the "loss of pressure". I mean it was so dramatic and such a huge part of the end of one episode and basically the base of the storyline for the next episode... why the hell not get it right lol ack I wish they just got these things right, its not like its that much more trouble

Su Campu

It's like the first Final Destination movie, where the plane explodes about 200ft after takeoff and you see people getting sucked out of the gaping hole in the fuselage. :rolleyes:

ronnie3585

It's simple.

It's much easier to be lazy than to be accurate.

jmayo

It's the movies.
It is often laziness, it is often done becuase they can't get the actual real kit and sometimes it is done to make more action scenes and have the wow factor with special effects.
They do throw the laws of physics and normal mechanics out the window a lot.

It's like how cars drive away after jumping those ramps of jumping from building to building.
Try that with ordinary car and see how good the suspension would be afterwards.

Steyr

View Profile wrote: »

Think the newer Herc's are pressurised too as is Airbus' new A400M.

And the above especially the C-130J's and the new A400M are pressurised and come now with all "glass" cockpits and HUD's and are increasingly faster than your average Mil prop transport Aircraft.

castie

This is a series with people that can fly.

And your concerned with inaccuracies about the plane?

BrianD

Take a look at IMDB.com and you'll find that most movies are littered with continuity errors. They have a section on many movies that shows these "inconsistencies" - all listed out. Might be worth checking out some of your favourite movies featuring aircraft and sees what turns up.

Have a look at the page for Top Gun. They've noted such things as:

"During most flight sequences, safety pins and star wheels on left top head box of MBU GRU-8 ejection seat are installed. Thus the seat is not armed and in any inverted maneuvers, seats would slide off ejection gun rails."

or: When Maverick destroys the first enemy fighter in the final battle, it plummets straight down. A fighter jet traveling at close to the speed of sound would not fall straight down when struck, it would continue on its previous course and then begin to fall downward.

to the some what silly When Maverick is driving his motorcycle along the runway with the planes taking off, you can see the bed of the truck he's atop at the bottom of the screen.


More here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/goofs

castie

BrianD wrote: »

When Maverick is driving his motorcycle along the runway with the planes taking off, you can see the bed of the truck he's atop at the bottom of the screen.

Thats up there with Dawsons Creek having the microphone in the shots on its first series

Delancey

You know in the movies when someone fires a handgun in a plane and a huge hole opens up and folks get sucked out ?
Well I saw a programme that tried to replicate the scenario and guess what ? Impossible was the verdict - a single bullet would not open up a huge de-pressurisation.

Still , I do love seeing bad boy Goldfinger getting sucked out his aircraft window ....

cyrusdvirus

just in relation to Prop a/c being pressurised (and i know you specifically mentioned cargo aircraft) but as far back as WW2 the B-29 Superfortress was a pressurised aircraft, and before the jet age took off (pardon the pun)for civilian aircraft the Lockheed Constellation, the Boeing 377, the DC 6 etc were all pressurised.

xflyer

It's called artistic licence. You have to watch most things with a suspension of belief. Have you ever watched Die Hard 2. The whole thing is a big fantasy. Virtually none of it's plausible if you know anything about aircraft, ATC, airports, guns, police, military and frankly snowmobiles. But it's a hugely enjoyable romp.

They used a C123 in that as well, fitted with four engines and ejector seats:D. That was hilarious.

If you think Heroes is bad, TV programmes years ago were positively laughable. I remember several programmes over the years where the hero takes off on in one type of aeroplane flew there in another and landed in a third. Which is I guess why it made him the hero!

Really though your amount of irritation is only caused by your own level of knowledge. If I see a movie with submarines or trains in it. I never spot the errors because I know nothing about them. No doubt experts in those fields get all irritated by the errors.

One thing that does irritate me is mistakes in documentaries. Sometimes even in programmes that deal with an individual type you will see an entirely different aircraft featured. Particularly with WW2 types. There is no excuse for that.

Delancey

xflyer wrote: »

One thing that does irritate me is mistakes in documentaries. Sometimes even in programmes that deal with an individual type you will see an entirely different aircraft featured. Particularly with WW2 types. There is no excuse for that.

+ 1 , very annoying when you watch a show about the Lancaster bomber yet is peppered throughout with images of the Halifax :mad:

Dara Robinson

xflyer wrote: »

Really though your amount of irritation is only caused by your own level of knowledge. If I see a movie with submarines or trains in it. I never spot the errors because I know nothing about them. No doubt experts in those fields get all irritated by the errors.

Very true. But you do wonder why they make the decision to use a military aircraft when a commercial one would have done a better job and a one liner from someone stating that its hidden in plain sight would have done the trick. Bah anyways, your right. Just causes me much frustration some times, I suppose its the anal retentive in me

xflyer wrote: »

One thing that does irritate me is mistakes in documentaries. Sometimes even in programmes that deal with an individual type you will see an entirely different aircraft featured. Particularly with WW2 types. There is no excuse for that.

+1

Steyr

xflyer wrote: »

They used a C123 in that as well, fitted with four engines and ejector seats:D. That was hilarious.

Not only that but they were Jet Engines..