# Flight of the Phoenix



## mdh (20 Mar 2005)

Saw this movie last night and I wanted to run it past the pilots/techies on the board.

Although the premiss of rebuilding a plane out of scrap was far-fetched, then again, who knows, perhaps it would be possible to do such a thing

Also I did wonder why the Boxcar transport was flying so low in the opening sequences? 

Was that just Hollywood license - or would a fully-loaded radial engine bird like the one in the movie be forced to fly close to the desert floor?  

I know that hot climates impact performance and altitude - but it just didn't look realistic to me.


Any observations or thoughts on the film?

Cheers, mdh


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Mar 2005)

Haven't seen it yet, MDH, but remember that Hollywood's main "Line of Operation" is to make money and make more movies.  Sometimes it has to "tart things up a bit", as the Brits would say.

Could they build it out of scrap...if there is someone with MacGyver's resourcefulness and Kelly Johnson's (of Lockheed Skunkworks fame) aerodynamic savvy and the right materials conveniently "lying" around, sure...they might be able to make something.  Would it look like the Phoenix?  Well, in a Hollywood movie it would!  ;D

Re: low flying -- radial engines generally make more power with cold dense air...closer to sea level is better.  If you are turbo/supercharged, higher altitude will keep the engine from losing too much power at higher altitudes.  Enough to balance off the reduced lift in thinner air at altitude, kinda hard to tell.  C-119's were well known for carrying a fiar bit, but they had to burn off a fair bit of fuel to climb up to higher altitudes if they were going for range.  Now if they were going to drop a few thousand keys of coke to some folks waiting in a forest on the coasts of Canada or the States, they might fly lower...  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## mdh (20 Mar 2005)

> Now if they were going to drop a few thousand keys of coke to some folks waiting in a forest on the coasts of Canada or the States, they might fly lower...



That's one quick way to build up your multi-time experience in civvie aviation.   

As a side note the radials were using a starter system with shot-gun shells - (needless to say it added to the dramatic tension as Dennis Quaid - left with only five shells - fired one shell after another to start the engine... but I won't give any   more away.)


cheers, mdh


----------



## kincanucks (20 Mar 2005)

I believed it more when Jimmy Stewart did it.


----------



## mdh (20 Mar 2005)

> I believed it more when Jimmy Stewart did it.




Funnily enough I barely remember Stewart in the film (which I haven't seen for nearly 30 years) -Hardy Kruger was the guy I most remember - with his steel glasses and the Teutonic arrogance.  

For those of us who are of a "certain vintage" the original Flight was a staple of Saturday afternoon TV movies - I think Mark Steyn gets it right with his review below,

cheers, all, mdh





> FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX
> 
> The Flight of the Phoenix rises from the ashes. Remember the original? James Stewart, Richard Attenborough, Ernest Borgnine, Peter Finch, Ian Bannen, Ronald Fraser, Hardy Krüger. The sort of cast you took for granted back in 1965. I have blurry childhood memories of rainy weekends, switching on the telly and usually finding some movie in which an Anglo-American-Aussie-Euro combination of blokes would be wiping the sweat from their brow in dusty climes and trying to figure a way out of the fix they were in.
> 
> ...


----------



## jmacleod (25 Mar 2005)

Remember "Flight of the Phoenix' the original version well. The screenplay was adopted from a
book, written I think by a gentleman from the UK. Veteran air show and test pilot Paul Mantz
well known on the North American air show circuit was killed during one of the flying sequences.
The film had a fine cast, and featured James Stewart. Stewart was a real pilot, having attained
the rank of Colonel in the USArmy Air Force, World War II, and flew the B-24 "Liberator" on
many missions over occupied Europe - he was later promoted to BGEN in the USAir Force Reserve
- you had to get well into the original movie before you realized that the plan (in the plot) was
to rebuild the C-119 as a single engine aircraft, based on the advice from Hardy Kruger, assumed
to be an aeronautical engineer, but in fact, a model aircraft kit designer. I remember that the C-119
in RCAF service required aircrews to wear a parachute (most of which turned out to be chest packs)
Have not seen the new version - Regards, MacLeod


----------



## foxtwo (25 Mar 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Also I did wonder why the Boxcar transport was flying so low in the opening sequences?



I havn't seen the movie either, was it flying in enemy territory or something? Because in many cases, the lower your altitude, the less vulnerable you are to radar right? Anyway just makin' a guess.


----------



## kincanucks (25 Mar 2005)

Maybe there was this really big storm they were trying to avoid.  Just a guess.


----------



## foxtwo (25 Mar 2005)

mdh, you make me laugh  ;D


----------



## mdh (27 Mar 2005)

> Remember "Flight of the Phoenix' the original version well. The screenplay was adopted from a
> book, written I think by a gentleman from the UK. Veteran air show and test pilot Paul Mantz
> well known on the North American air show circuit was killed during one of the flying sequences.
> The film had a fine cast, and featured James Stewart. Stewart was a real pilot, having attained
> ...



I recall reading about the accident that claimed Mantz during the filming.   I don't remember him as a fixture on the airshow circuit but your post brings to mind a time when the Canadian Forces served as something of a repository for air show performers and vintage aircraft.   There was a character named Ormond Hayden-Baillie who had been a member of the RCAF, and, being a rather wealthy ex-pat Brit, owned and flew a retired RCAF T33; he also owned a Sea Fury. Legend has it that Ormond called in a lot of favours to keep the T33 flying from RCAF inventories but I'm sure that's just irresponsible hearsay   . He was eventually killed flying a P51 in Germany in the mid-70s.   Some of the older pilots here might remember him. 

cheers, mdh


----------



## mdh (28 Mar 2005)

> Maybe there was this really big storm they were trying to avoid.   Just a guess.



Ah, if only it were that simple Kincanucks!      (and since it's just a movie, easy to dismiss but I figure why not have some fun with it). And since I've got time on my hands today, and just a touch bored, I thought I might expand on this topic.

I did some quick and dirty research, and it seems that the Gobi Desert is only about 5 per cent sand, and the rest is dominated by the Altai Mountain range rising to an altitude of 12,000 feet.

Tempatures in the desert region are in the range of 112-114 degrees F (40C) in summer.   The C119 was a twin radial (Wright Cyclone 18) powered aircraft producing 3,500 HP in each engine and a service ceiling of approximately 25,000 feet. It being an ancient hauler, though, its overall performance would undoubtedly be degraded. 

However, flying above 10,000 feet (ASL) is problematic unless you have a pressurized aircraft or oxygen (esp. with passengers) are heavy (possibly overloaded), and there would be a desire to maximize radial engine performance (as Duey pointed out) it probably would make sense to fly at lower altitudes close to sea level - the mountain range still presents a potential problem (though they are mostly located in the south-eastern portion of Mongolia and the movie doesn't tell us the exact route we'll assume for the fun of it they skirted the southwest extremity of the range).

Assuming the destination was UlaamBaator, then the low level alt. as a navigation strategy is plausible.   The best solution might be to fly at night when it's cooler, clearer, but again not wise to fly above 5,000 asl without oxygen at night. 

But the night flight option assumes adequate IFR equipment/nav on the C119 - or attempting a night VFR (always a risk of disorientation with  no lights on the ground) and hoping Mongolian charts are up to date and accurate to indicate high obstacles, terrain, etc - you can also rely (heavily) on GPS and hope that Dennis Quaid's instrument skills are up to it.

Trying to fly above the storm in the movie was probably not a real option since it's unikely you would be able to climb high enough (or fast enough with a rate of climb probably much less than the 1,000 feet per minute specified for the C119) in an unpressurized aircraft.   Flying around the storm was probably the only solution.

Or scrap the C119 and get something with turbines and a pressurized hull   ;D

cheers, mdh


----------

