The Avengers Film.

The Avengers Film.

Madcat
Madcat

May 8th, 2012, 10:16 pm #1

Ok have just seen the Avengers Movie in the Cinema, I thought it was brilliant, a lot better than I thought it would be but I have got one critisism about it.


S.H.I.E.L.D. have a flying Aircraft Carrier, advanced VTOL Aircraft, advanced Weapons systems and yet the best aircraft they could put on deck were Harrier and Alpha Jets, I mean yes they did have an F-35 Vtol (or Ctol), I know the Pentagon refused to co-operate with the film makers, but they could have chosen some more modern looking aircraft, even made them up like they did the Vtol transport aircraft ( though I have heard there is a Jet powered aircraft similar to the V-22 Osprey, which is to replace the V-22)

Ok rant over, was a good film and it was a minor detail, but I am someone who watches an action film and complains that the guns are not working as they should IRL .
Quote
Share

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

May 8th, 2012, 10:31 pm #2

In the comic book canon, SHIELD is ambiguously supernational. In other words, not necessarily a purely American department.

It started out as a "somewhere above the Pentagon, and only slightly below the President, but also able to operate autonomously" division, back in the days when pretty much everything that happened in the Marvel Universe centered around New York in general and Manhattan in particular.

As the MU expanded (it was a Big Thing (TM) when they started a California-based branch of the Avengers) it first became less East Coast centric, and eventually less US-centric. They deliberately keep it vague, but the current idea of SHIELD (in the comics, anyway) is sort of... well, sorta-kinda a UN-ish Department of Defense. It's American run and mostly operated, but features support from allied countries like Britain, Germany and Canada.

As such, it stands to reason that there'd be some non-US aircraft, like an Alphajet and a Harrier, and that they also be recognizable as such.

Doc.
Quote
Share

Madcat
Madcat

May 8th, 2012, 10:49 pm #3

I can think of much more modern International Carrier Aircraft than the Alpha Jet ( which is not Carrier Capable) and the Harrier, I mean there is the Mig-29k, Su-33, If you can get past they are non-Carrier capable, then there are the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, I know it has to be multinational but they could have used more modern looking and more recognisable aircraft.

Like I said its just a small thing in a really good film.

Can anyone tell me though why whenever a city gets blown up in a Hollywood film it is nealry always New York lol.
Quote
Share

Barry
Barry

May 8th, 2012, 11:24 pm #4

They should have recruited Godzilla so the Hulk could have a green partner.
Quote
Share

FireFrenzy
FireFrenzy

May 9th, 2012, 9:06 am #5

Ok have just seen the Avengers Movie in the Cinema, I thought it was brilliant, a lot better than I thought it would be but I have got one critisism about it.


S.H.I.E.L.D. have a flying Aircraft Carrier, advanced VTOL Aircraft, advanced Weapons systems and yet the best aircraft they could put on deck were Harrier and Alpha Jets, I mean yes they did have an F-35 Vtol (or Ctol), I know the Pentagon refused to co-operate with the film makers, but they could have chosen some more modern looking aircraft, even made them up like they did the Vtol transport aircraft ( though I have heard there is a Jet powered aircraft similar to the V-22 Osprey, which is to replace the V-22)

Ok rant over, was a good film and it was a minor detail, but I am someone who watches an action film and complains that the guns are not working as they should IRL .
Am i the only one who was all "WHY THE HELL dont these engines have one of those Ospery style cross shafts where 1 motor turns both of the "whirly bits" (technical term) if required?"

If you're going to R&D, fund, build, etc a helicarrier wouldnt that seem like a rather "autoinclude" feature, with perhaps even a mid shaft in case the two front motors cut out?

I mean they specifically mentioned that the thing could fly on 2 out of the 4 engines...
Quote
Share

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

May 9th, 2012, 11:34 am #6

Well, let's see...

A V-22 Osprey has a maximum takeoff weight of 60,500 pounds, and two Rolls-Royce/Allison AE1107C engines capable of 4,500 shaft horsepower each.

So, generally speaking, 9,000 SHP can lift 60,500 lb, or 6.7 pounds per HP. A standard chopper is probably more efficient, and can lift more per HP, but I think we can safely say the SHIELD's HeliCarrier is not the most efficient design.

Now, a typical modern nuclear carrier is not a dainty beast. The USS Ronald Reagan displaces 101,400 long tons, or 227 million pounds.

So if the above formula holds, we'd need thirty-four million shaft horsepower to fly the HeliCarrier. Or one hundred and thirty Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors.

Or about nine of Tony Stark's first-generation of miniaturized Arc Reactors.

But anyway, a transfer shaft like you suggest would have to be capable of withstanding at least nine million horsepower. The shafts on a Nimitz class are supposed to be six feet in diameter, and "only" have to withstand about 80,000 HP each. A Helicarrier shaft would have to be twenty times larger, which rapidly starts invoking the inverse square law. Heavier shafts mean more HP, which means bigger reactors, etc. A great deal of mass is spent just making parts strong enough to keep from collapsing under it's own weight.

No, a transfer shaft idea wouldn't work. Technically the whole idea of a Helicarrier wouldn't work, but hey, it's been SHIELD's flying headquarters since the early seventies. In a movie where one guy can somehow gain a thousand pounds of mass out of nowhere, another guy can fly by holding on to the hammer he just threw, and they're all after a small box that contains an entire universe, I'll give it a pass.

Doc.
Quote
Share

Nate
Nate

May 9th, 2012, 7:07 pm #7

Ok have just seen the Avengers Movie in the Cinema, I thought it was brilliant, a lot better than I thought it would be but I have got one critisism about it.


S.H.I.E.L.D. have a flying Aircraft Carrier, advanced VTOL Aircraft, advanced Weapons systems and yet the best aircraft they could put on deck were Harrier and Alpha Jets, I mean yes they did have an F-35 Vtol (or Ctol), I know the Pentagon refused to co-operate with the film makers, but they could have chosen some more modern looking aircraft, even made them up like they did the Vtol transport aircraft ( though I have heard there is a Jet powered aircraft similar to the V-22 Osprey, which is to replace the V-22)

Ok rant over, was a good film and it was a minor detail, but I am someone who watches an action film and complains that the guns are not working as they should IRL .
I don't know nearly enough of the backstory to understand Bruce Banner's "secret", that he's always angry.

Anyone care to explain how all that works?
Quote
Share

Vulpis
Vulpis

May 9th, 2012, 8:22 pm #8

I can think of much more modern International Carrier Aircraft than the Alpha Jet ( which is not Carrier Capable) and the Harrier, I mean there is the Mig-29k, Su-33, If you can get past they are non-Carrier capable, then there are the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, I know it has to be multinational but they could have used more modern looking and more recognisable aircraft.

Like I said its just a small thing in a really good film.

Can anyone tell me though why whenever a city gets blown up in a Hollywood film it is nealry always New York lol.
Here's a thought--were they actually, in-setting, Harriers and such, or were they (like the X-Men's Blackbird) craft that just looked like them, with very different internals? I'm not sure how blantantly the movie version of SHIELD went around advertising their Overtechnolgy advantage.
Quote
Share

Vulpis
Vulpis

May 9th, 2012, 8:43 pm #9

Well, let's see...

A V-22 Osprey has a maximum takeoff weight of 60,500 pounds, and two Rolls-Royce/Allison AE1107C engines capable of 4,500 shaft horsepower each.

So, generally speaking, 9,000 SHP can lift 60,500 lb, or 6.7 pounds per HP. A standard chopper is probably more efficient, and can lift more per HP, but I think we can safely say the SHIELD's HeliCarrier is not the most efficient design.

Now, a typical modern nuclear carrier is not a dainty beast. The USS Ronald Reagan displaces 101,400 long tons, or 227 million pounds.

So if the above formula holds, we'd need thirty-four million shaft horsepower to fly the HeliCarrier. Or one hundred and thirty Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors.

Or about nine of Tony Stark's first-generation of miniaturized Arc Reactors.

But anyway, a transfer shaft like you suggest would have to be capable of withstanding at least nine million horsepower. The shafts on a Nimitz class are supposed to be six feet in diameter, and "only" have to withstand about 80,000 HP each. A Helicarrier shaft would have to be twenty times larger, which rapidly starts invoking the inverse square law. Heavier shafts mean more HP, which means bigger reactors, etc. A great deal of mass is spent just making parts strong enough to keep from collapsing under it's own weight.

No, a transfer shaft idea wouldn't work. Technically the whole idea of a Helicarrier wouldn't work, but hey, it's been SHIELD's flying headquarters since the early seventies. In a movie where one guy can somehow gain a thousand pounds of mass out of nowhere, another guy can fly by holding on to the hammer he just threw, and they're all after a small box that contains an entire universe, I'll give it a pass.

Doc.
laugh I think part of the subtext of the Helicarrier is that it contains Alien Technology that at least partially negates the mass, kinda like how the Don Karnage version has a blimp under it.
Quote
Share

Webwolf
Webwolf

May 9th, 2012, 9:09 pm #10

I can think of much more modern International Carrier Aircraft than the Alpha Jet ( which is not Carrier Capable) and the Harrier, I mean there is the Mig-29k, Su-33, If you can get past they are non-Carrier capable, then there are the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, I know it has to be multinational but they could have used more modern looking and more recognisable aircraft.

Like I said its just a small thing in a really good film.

Can anyone tell me though why whenever a city gets blown up in a Hollywood film it is nealry always New York lol.
As far as I know, they're only not carrier-capable because they can't get airborne in the short distance that is a carrier's runway.

When the aforementioned jet is already airborne because the carrier it's on FLIES UNDER ITS OWN POWER, and you can basically just roll the jet off the edge of the runway and fall, nose-down, until you get enough airspeed to pull up, I don't really think that's much of an issue! =P
Quote
Share