Question on Exposed

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Question on Exposed

dlevine2100
In this episode, we see Foster and the other guy flying the high-
performance jet wearing oxygen masks. I just realized that I don't
think I ever remember seeing Sky's pilot wearing an oxygen mask,
even though apparently Sky's altitude ceiling is very high. Was this
an oversight, or on purpose?

It would be useless for the interceptor's pilots to wear oxygen
masks, but I think Sky's pilots should have. Also, for those of you
that have seen Sky up close, does it look like the pilot could
eject??

Comments?

David Levine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Question on Exposed

Griff!
It says in the UFO book that XV-104 (Fosters plane) was flying at 200,000ft!
That's space... and by rights he should have been wearing a spacesuit...

Maybe, Sky1 has a ejectable capsule cockpit, where the whole cockpit is
pressurised?

Having said all this... for all practical filming purposes, it wouldn't have
looked good for Foster and his co-pilot to have been conversing in full
space suits.... and Peter Gordeno probably would not have been too happy to
have his face hidden behind an oxygen mask, would have made conversation and
dialogue difficult too...

Artistic licence is a wonderful thing..

-----Original Message-----
From: David Levine [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 7:43 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Question on Exposed


In this episode, we see Foster and the other guy flying the high-
performance jet wearing oxygen masks. I just realized that I don't
think I ever remember seeing Sky's pilot wearing an oxygen mask,
even though apparently Sky's altitude ceiling is very high. Was this
an oversight, or on purpose?

It would be useless for the interceptor's pilots to wear oxygen
masks, but I think Sky's pilots should have. Also, for those of you
that have seen Sky up close, does it look like the pilot could
eject??

Comments?

David Levine





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

Michael
In reply to this post by dlevine2100
David Levine wrote:

>In this episode, we see Foster and the other guy flying the high-
>performance jet wearing oxygen masks. I just realized that I don't
>think I ever remember seeing Sky's pilot wearing an oxygen mask,
>even though apparently Sky's altitude ceiling is very high. Was this
>an oversight, or on purpose?
>
>It would be useless for the interceptor's pilots to wear oxygen
>masks, but I think Sky's pilots should have. Also, for those of you
>that have seen Sky up close, does it look like the pilot could
>eject??


Two thoughts.

1. Sky, being an established design, might not require its pilot to wear
full pressure gear. Foster, on the other hand, was test-flying a new
design, and so all possible precautions were being taken.

2. Sky might be similar to the General Dynamics F-111 in that the entire
cockpit can be ejected from the aircraft, forming an "escape pod".

Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

Michael
In reply to this post by dlevine2100
Here's a somewhat whimsical visual notion of what I was talking about!

The caption would (hypothetically) read: "Sky-9 cockpit, discovered by SHADO
recovery team some eighty-seven kilometers west of Algama in Siberia. Pilot
forced to eject after taking critical damage during combat with UFOs over
the Bering Sea. Pilot recovered safely".

Michael

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

Michael
In reply to this post by dlevine2100
And naturally the picture didn't attach. Let me try again.

Michael


>From: "Michael Wolff" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: [hidden email]
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: [SHADO] Question on Exposed
>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:38:09 -0400
>
>Here's a somewhat whimsical visual notion of what I was talking about!
>
>The caption would (hypothetically) read: "Sky-9 cockpit, discovered by
>SHADO
>recovery team some eighty-seven kilometers west of Algama in Siberia.
>Pilot
>forced to eject after taking critical damage during combat with UFOs over
>the Bering Sea. Pilot recovered safely".
>
>Michael
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

Dave Walsh-4
In reply to this post by Michael
At 08:07 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:

>David Levine wrote:
>
> >In this episode, we see Foster and the other guy flying the high-
> >performance jet wearing oxygen masks. I just realized that I don't
> >think I ever remember seeing Sky's pilot wearing an oxygen mask,
> >even though apparently Sky's altitude ceiling is very high. Was this
> >an oversight, or on purpose?
> >
> >It would be useless for the interceptor's pilots to wear oxygen
> >masks, but I think Sky's pilots should have. Also, for those of you
> >that have seen Sky up close, does it look like the pilot could
> >eject??

The accurate models do have ejection warning markings, so I'd have to
say yes.

>Two thoughts.
>
>1. Sky, being an established design, might not require its pilot to wear
>full pressure gear. Foster, on the other hand, was test-flying a new
>design, and so all possible precautions were being taken.

Established aircraft designs mean nothing as far as oxygen masks go.
F-15's, F-16's, F/A-18's, etc., are all established aircraft as are all
other U.S. military combat aircraft, and oxygen masks are required for each
and every one of them. The only thing working in favor of Sky 1's lack of
masks is that the jet is part of a submersible seacraft, and needs to be
watertight (and airtight) as a matter of course.

>2. Sky might be similar to the General Dynamics F-111 in that the entire
>cockpit can be ejected from the aircraft, forming an "escape pod".

Possibly, but I know from personal experience that 111 crews wore
masks ( I spent 4 years in the A.F. working on those pigs!), but the
problem on the models I've seen is the lack of seams around the cockpit
delineating a removable canopy or an ejectable crew module. I would
probably opt for an ejection seat instead of a crew module, though, since
there's less complicated technology involved in it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

SumitonJD
In reply to this post by dlevine2100
The reason you might not see seams for the ejection of the capsule around the
canopy might be it is like some of the older types that ejected downward so
it wouldn't be hit by the tail section.


James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

Dave Walsh-4
At 09:33 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>The reason you might not see seams for the ejection of the capsule around the
>canopy might be it is like some of the older types that ejected downward so
>it wouldn't be hit by the tail section.

The only problem there is the nose gear doors and an intake directly
aft of where the pod would come out! And that would ruin anyone's day
faster than a tail section would!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

Marc Martin
Administrator
In reply to this post by Michael
>And naturally the picture didn't attach. Let me try again.

It won't make any difference -- the mailing list strips out
all attachments. You can however upload something to the
"files" section of SHADO.

Marc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

davrecon-3
In reply to this post by SumitonJD

----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Question on Exposed


> The reason you might not see seams for the ejection of the capsule around
the
> canopy might be it is like some of the older types that ejected downward
so
> it wouldn't be hit by the tail section.
>
>
> James K.
>


A real bummer if you need to punch out low to the ground....

Dave H.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

Michael
In reply to this post by dlevine2100
Dave H wrote:

> > The reason you might not see seams for the ejection of the capsule
>around
>the
> > canopy might be it is like some of the older types that ejected downward
>so
> > it wouldn't be hit by the tail section.
> >
> >
> > James K.
> >
>
>
>A real bummer if you need to punch out low to the ground....


That's when you stick your legs out the bottom and do the Fred Flintstone
Landing!

Michael

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

anthonyappleyard <MCLSSAA2@fs2.mt.umist.ac.uk>
In reply to this post by Michael
Someone wrote:
> ... It would be useless for the interceptor's pilots to wear oxygen
> masks, ...

As Interceptors are likely to be exposed to enemy fire, I would feel
much safer in an Interceptor in a full space-type pressure suit, not
merely an open helmet with a riotsquad-type visor. I suppose that
part of the logic is that in `goodies' the movie producer wants the
character's face to be fully visible whenever possible. Same sort of
reasoning as: in scuba divers in Thunderbirds, goodies always seem to
have a fullface mask with a big full front window, but baddies always
seem to have a pilot-type opaque hemispherical mask and small eye-
holes.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

Michael
In reply to this post by dlevine2100
Amelia wrote:

>Now I have an image of Straker as Fred at his desk, in an animal skin,
>signing reports on stone plates with that bird's beak. Meanwhile, his Shado
>car is
>run by hamsters on a wheel. Barney is Alec, and Lake is Wilma and Gay is
>Betty?


And I don't even want to think about what the UFOs look like.

And SID, of course, is now SHALE (Space Helper Against Loathsome Enemies)

Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question on Exposed

screwedmorethenonce
Uhm, then just what is SkyDiver? A mutated Pleasuarous perhaps, with a "Terrordacktal" for Sky? (Can't have just any plain old flying dinosaur for Sky, now can we? After all it is an advanced model.)

Michael Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:Amelia wrote:

>Now I have an image of Straker as Fred at his desk, in an animal skin,
>signing reports on stone plates with that bird's beak. Meanwhile, his Shado
>car is
>run by hamsters on a wheel. Barney is Alec, and Lake is Wilma and Gay is
>Betty?