Well guys, went to see the remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" yesterday. The
short version of this report is: don't throw away your copies of the
original. Hollywood, once again, has opted for snazzy, highly improbable,
special effects to cover-up totally gutted character development and plot.
About the only two things not wrong with this film is the restaging in the
Gobi desert and the additional of a female character -- but no romantic
interest. If I had never seen the original film, I might rate this as a
two-star Hollywood potboiler.. as it is, give it 1.25 stars.

Our first problem is with the first sandstorm. How winds of, say
75mph, in a sandstorm can rip-off antenas, engine cowlings, and most amazing
of all, a huge cargo door on an aircraft built to fly at 200+ mph is beyond
me. But this flimsily built cargo plane loses bits and pieces of itself all
over the place. But never mind, because before it loses the cargo hatch, it
engages in aerobatic maneuvers that would make a 1920's barnstormer proud.
Engulfed in a huge sandstorm that looks like left over footage from "A
Perfect Storm" tinted orange, this big bellied cargo plane spirals, twists,
spins, stalls, barrel rolls, inverted flight, Immelman turns, and just about
every aerobatic maneuver known to man except an outside loop. No wonder
the cargo door came off. but again, that's okay because the opening footage
of the film has this crazed crop-duster of a pilot hedge-hopping a few
hundred feet above the sand dunes and doing 4g banking turns between the
hills. No wonder he loses the cargo door later.

When they're about to take off, our hero (the nerd engineer)
exclaims, from just looking around, that the aircraft is overweight. One
hell of an engineer who can estimate weights and balance of an unfamiliar
aircraft to a nicety just by watching the cargo being loaded. What's a
talent like that doing at a failed oil exploration rig in the middle of the
Gobi desert? At least the Hardy Kruger character was visiting his brother.
This guy is just "hitch hiking around the world and landed up here." Of
course, they had to get the nerdiest looking stereotype of an actor to play
the role. I'm surprized that they didn't try to ressurect Wally Cox for the
part. But for all the animation this hack portrayed, maybe they did use the
late Wally Cox for the part.

So they crash. Spend a lot of time ****ing and moaning over water,
food, etc. etc., as in the original film, but with nowheres near the same
conviction or urgency. These characters have no soul .. actually, these
characters don't have much in the way of characters. They're just a bunch
of losers lost in the Gobi desert sand dunes with no interactions beyond
"pass the canned peaches." Finally, after the mandatory fights, the aborted
walk-out attempt, the rescue by captain Townes, etc. they agree to try to
build the Phoenix. They don't have a very tough job of it. They have all
the pipes and clamps needed to build a-frames, scaffolds, braces, etc. They
have a generator, power tools, (none of that gruesome bloody-handed sawing
with a bent hacksaw blade as in the original) welding gear -- I was
disappointed because I expected someone to trot out a Bridgeport mill and a
14" lathe .. they seemed to have everything else. But they're very slow at
it and very ineffective. There's a spectacular fuel explosion (caused by
negligence and gross incompetence) that leaves them without lights or fuel
to waste on the generator.

If the one storm that downed the plane wasn't enough, we get two
more. One a thunderstorm and the other yet another sandstorm that buries
the Phoenix when it is all done. Anyhow, here's this fat pig of an aluminum
aircraft half-buried in the sand and the sagacious captain realizes that the
thunderstorm is "electrical" and in a panic gets the crew to throw a loop of
cable around the tail of the aircraft and run the cable out a few hundred
feet and bury the winch in the sand in order to "ground the plane. "Got to
ground the Phoenix .. those wings are full of fuel...." I don't know how
much more "grounded" the addition of a cable and winch could have made that
buried aluminum airframe.. but it seemed to work. I don't know why they
didn't just stick some of those long pieces of pipe they had lying around to
attract the lightning. I guess physics works differently in the Gobi desert
and in Hollywood.

There is the wonderful "toy airplane" scene. In the original our
hero say's "A toy airplane is a thing that you wind up a spring and it rolls
along the ground." In this version "A toy airplane is thing that you wind a
rubber band... " Wow! an insult to all the old farts like me who flew
competitive rubber-powered models. And what about Stringfellow and his
rubber-powered model of 1886 or so? Anyone who has ever wound up and
handled a big rubber powered model knows that it is no "toy." And one of
the most important lines of all, as to how a model has to be more stable
than a full-sized aircraft because it doesn't have a pilot is totally
garbled. And doesn't make any sense .. who builds free-flight models
without radio control these days?

I really have to admire our nerdy here. He does all his
calculations long-hand, without the help of a calculator, or even a slide
rule. But he isn't very consistent in his design. Early on, he points out
that the tail is fried. There's a reasonable rudder and an intact, outboard
stub of the horizontal stabilizer. But the inboard portion, with the
elevator is wrecked .. "we'll have to do something about that.." he muses.
And he does, later on in the picture, the Phoenix has a V-tail -- great
solution -- but he changes his mind again, because on take off, it is back
to a standard empennage. He's not that good an engineer, though, because
he never managed to give the pilot rudder pedals. That means that nerd has
to sit in the cockpit, facing backwards, and work the rudder for the pilot.
This guy is not only a great engineer, but he manages to establish
instantaneous telepathic communications with the pilot. And he does this
without ever once over-correcting .. doesn't even have a pilot's tickets..
but he can do that kind of coordination just by feel. Any of you guys who
have taken flying lessons know just how ridiculous the two-man pilotage
scenario in a jury-rigged monster is likely to be. But we have to have this
weird control system because otherwise, he wouldn't have had to crawl out on
the boom to re-attach the rudder cables that had been shot off by hostile
nomads (lucky shot) on take off.

At the (thankful) end, we have yet another sandstorm. And in that
storm, all doubt is dispelled. The Phoenix will fly. We can see it. The
wind blows so hard that the plane is bouncing up and down, gear off the
ground. It will fly. IT WILL FLY! This guy is one hell of an engineer.
And he is visibly impressed by his design.. by the proof that "IT WILL
FLY!!!!" There they are, standing straight up in a 45mph gale (their
clothing barely fluttering and they are not leaning very hard), but the wind
is lifting the aircraft off the ground. And it is that bouncing up and
down that convinces them that the Phoenix will fly. It wants to fly.. It is
straining to fly. Even the pilot is impressed ... as if stability and
control weren't ever an issue and that only lift mattered. Can't figure out
how this jerk ever got his wings.. no wonder he's a wreck of a has been
pilot flying freight out of the Gobi desert in a 50 year-old beat-up cargo
plane that loses cargo doors.

The sandstorm buries the Phoenix so that only its V-tail is
sticking out -- either that, or it has been turned to a 45 degree bank, but
one wing is mysteriously not sticking out. We get the pep talk and in the
next, in a matter of hours, they have completely cleared ten feet of sand
from the plane, dug a ditch to get the plane out of the sand, cleaned and
serviced the engine, and now they're hauling in harnesses to get the plane
moving. This Phoenix, by the way, has an intact landing gear, so it isn't
that tough a haul.

The only real drama is at the end, the bit with the Kaufman
starters and "wasting" the penultimate cartridge to clear the cylinders. In
the original, Jimmy Steward was visibly shaken and conflicted. This guy
just goes to it with alacrity and no hint of conflict. Steward was an
experience pilot and knew what was what and probably contributed to
believability of the film and to preventing the copious Hollywood goofs that
plagues this sorry rerun.

Boris

--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

"Boris Beizer" wrote in message
ink.net...
Well guys, went to see the remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" yesterday.
The
short version of this report is: don't throw away your copies of the

[look Steve - I snipped!]


believability of the film and to preventing the copious Hollywood goofs
that
plagues this sorry rerun.

Boris

--


Thanks for the heads up. And the laughs.

Steve.

Boris Beizer wrote:

Well guys, went to see the remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" yesterday. The
short version of this report is: don't throw away your copies of the
original.


Fabulous critique Boris!

Seems like I read somewhere last week that the test flight in a
sandstorm was rigged by placing the "rebuilt" plane on top of a dragster
and roaring down the road. The sandstorm masked the car.

Your review remided me of how, back in college, we MIT students used to
enjoy to watching the sci-fi and horror movies of the 50s so we could
vie at beings the first to yell out a jeer at a techno goof, even the
little ones like, "Look, that torch is casting a shadow of it's own
flame on the wall it's mounted to!"

Thanks for the mammaries,

Jeff


--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"

What is a kaupfmann starter?
"Boris Beizer" skrev i melding
ink.net...
Well guys, went to see the remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" yesterday.
The
short version of this report is: don't throw away your copies of the
original. Hollywood, once again, has opted for snazzy, highly improbable,
special effects to cover-up totally gutted character development and plot.
About the only two things not wrong with this film is the restaging in the
Gobi desert and the additional of a female character -- but no romantic
interest. If I had never seen the original film, I might rate this as a
two-star Hollywood potboiler.. as it is, give it 1.25 stars.

Our first problem is with the first sandstorm. How winds of, say
75mph, in a sandstorm can rip-off antenas, engine cowlings, and most
amazing
of all, a huge cargo door on an aircraft built to fly at 200+ mph is
beyond
me. But this flimsily built cargo plane loses bits and pieces of itself
all
over the place. But never mind, because before it loses the cargo hatch,
it
engages in aerobatic maneuvers that would make a 1920's barnstormer proud.
Engulfed in a huge sandstorm that looks like left over footage from "A
Perfect Storm" tinted orange, this big bellied cargo plane spirals,
twists,
spins, stalls, barrel rolls, inverted flight, Immelman turns, and just
about
every aerobatic maneuver known to man except an outside loop. No wonder
the cargo door came off. but again, that's okay because the opening
footage
of the film has this crazed crop-duster of a pilot hedge-hopping a few
hundred feet above the sand dunes and doing 4g banking turns between the
hills. No wonder he loses the cargo door later.

When they're about to take off, our hero (the nerd engineer)
exclaims, from just looking around, that the aircraft is overweight. One
hell of an engineer who can estimate weights and balance of an unfamiliar
aircraft to a nicety just by watching the cargo being loaded. What's a
talent like that doing at a failed oil exploration rig in the middle of
the
Gobi desert? At least the Hardy Kruger character was visiting his brother.
This guy is just "hitch hiking around the world and landed up here." Of
course, they had to get the nerdiest looking stereotype of an actor to
play
the role. I'm surprized that they didn't try to ressurect Wally Cox for
the
part. But for all the animation this hack portrayed, maybe they did use
the
late Wally Cox for the part.

So they crash. Spend a lot of time ****ing and moaning over
water,
food, etc. etc., as in the original film, but with nowheres near the same
conviction or urgency. These characters have no soul .. actually, these
characters don't have much in the way of characters. They're just a
bunch
of losers lost in the Gobi desert sand dunes with no interactions beyond
"pass the canned peaches." Finally, after the mandatory fights, the
aborted
walk-out attempt, the rescue by captain Townes, etc. they agree to try to
build the Phoenix. They don't have a very tough job of it. They have
all
the pipes and clamps needed to build a-frames, scaffolds, braces, etc.
They
have a generator, power tools, (none of that gruesome bloody-handed
sawing
with a bent hacksaw blade as in the original) welding gear -- I was
disappointed because I expected someone to trot out a Bridgeport mill and
a
14" lathe .. they seemed to have everything else. But they're very slow
at
it and very ineffective. There's a spectacular fuel explosion (caused by
negligence and gross incompetence) that leaves them without lights or fuel
to waste on the generator.

If the one storm that downed the plane wasn't enough, we get
two
more. One a thunderstorm and the other yet another sandstorm that buries
the Phoenix when it is all done. Anyhow, here's this fat pig of an
aluminum
aircraft half-buried in the sand and the sagacious captain realizes that
the
thunderstorm is "electrical" and in a panic gets the crew to throw a loop
of
cable around the tail of the aircraft and run the cable out a few hundred
feet and bury the winch in the sand in order to "ground the plane. "Got
to
ground the Phoenix .. those wings are full of fuel...." I don't know how
much more "grounded" the addition of a cable and winch could have made
that
buried aluminum airframe.. but it seemed to work. I don't know why they
didn't just stick some of those long pieces of pipe they had lying around
to
attract the lightning. I guess physics works differently in the Gobi
desert
and in Hollywood.

There is the wonderful "toy airplane" scene. In the original our
hero say's "A toy airplane is a thing that you wind up a spring and it
rolls
along the ground." In this version "A toy airplane is thing that you wind
a
rubber band... " Wow! an insult to all the old farts like me who flew
competitive rubber-powered models. And what about Stringfellow and his
rubber-powered model of 1886 or so? Anyone who has ever wound up and
handled a big rubber powered model knows that it is no "toy." And one of
the most important lines of all, as to how a model has to be more stable
than a full-sized aircraft because it doesn't have a pilot is totally
garbled. And doesn't make any sense .. who builds free-flight models
without radio control these days?

I really have to admire our nerdy here. He does all his
calculations long-hand, without the help of a calculator, or even a slide
rule. But he isn't very consistent in his design. Early on, he points
out
that the tail is fried. There's a reasonable rudder and an intact,
outboard
stub of the horizontal stabilizer. But the inboard portion, with the
elevator is wrecked .. "we'll have to do something about that.." he muses.
And he does, later on in the picture, the Phoenix has a V-tail -- great
solution -- but he changes his mind again, because on take off, it is back
to a standard empennage. He's not that good an engineer, though, because
he never managed to give the pilot rudder pedals. That means that nerd
has
to sit in the cockpit, facing backwards, and work the rudder for the
pilot.
This guy is not only a great engineer, but he manages to establish
instantaneous telepathic communications with the pilot. And he does
this
without ever once over-correcting .. doesn't even have a pilot's tickets..
but he can do that kind of coordination just by feel. Any of you guys
who
have taken flying lessons know just how ridiculous the two-man pilotage
scenario in a jury-rigged monster is likely to be. But we have to have
this
weird control system because otherwise, he wouldn't have had to crawl out
on
the boom to re-attach the rudder cables that had been shot off by hostile
nomads (lucky shot) on take off.

At the (thankful) end, we have yet another sandstorm. And in that
storm, all doubt is dispelled. The Phoenix will fly. We can see it. The
wind blows so hard that the plane is bouncing up and down, gear off the
ground. It will fly. IT WILL FLY! This guy is one hell of an
engineer.
And he is visibly impressed by his design.. by the proof that "IT WILL
FLY!!!!" There they are, standing straight up in a 45mph gale (their
clothing barely fluttering and they are not leaning very hard), but the
wind
is lifting the aircraft off the ground. And it is that bouncing up and
down that convinces them that the Phoenix will fly. It wants to fly.. It
is
straining to fly. Even the pilot is impressed ... as if stability and
control weren't ever an issue and that only lift mattered. Can't figure
out
how this jerk ever got his wings.. no wonder he's a wreck of a has been
pilot flying freight out of the Gobi desert in a 50 year-old beat-up cargo
plane that loses cargo doors.

The sandstorm buries the Phoenix so that only its V-tail is
sticking out -- either that, or it has been turned to a 45 degree bank,
but
one wing is mysteriously not sticking out. We get the pep talk and in
the
next, in a matter of hours, they have completely cleared ten feet of sand
from the plane, dug a ditch to get the plane out of the sand, cleaned and
serviced the engine, and now they're hauling in harnesses to get the plane
moving. This Phoenix, by the way, has an intact landing gear, so it isn't
that tough a haul.

The only real drama is at the end, the bit with the Kaufman
starters and "wasting" the penultimate cartridge to clear the cylinders.
In
the original, Jimmy Steward was visibly shaken and conflicted. This guy
just goes to it with alacrity and no hint of conflict. Steward was an
experience pilot and knew what was what and probably contributed to
believability of the film and to preventing the copious Hollywood goofs
that
plagues this sorry rerun.

Boris

--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

"Håken Hveem" wrote in message
...
What is a kaupfmann starter?

It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell.. is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines. I only know that it is called a "Coffman Starter" from the
original Flight of the Phoenix movie, and from the book by Elleston Trevor.
I had the spelling wrong. Not a "Kaufman" or "Kaupfmann" starter, but a
"Coffman Starter."

Boris

--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

Boris Beizer wrote:


It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell.. is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines.

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.
Used on a numer of aircraft engines, not all of them radials (I know early
models of the Rolls Royce Griffon engine used them). I'm also pretty sure
that for some planes (Grumman Hellcat, IIRC) it was the normal way of
starting tme.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Boris Beizer wrote:


It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell..
is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines.

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.

The burning of the gunpowder in the shotgun shell provided the compressed
gas. Sorry not to have made it clear. That's what I meant.

Boris

--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

Boris Beizer writes:

Well guys, went to see the remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" yesterday.
...

Why don't you tell us what you really thought of this movie?

Whoa! What's that you say, "Lotsa Gas"? No I believe you got the name
right the first time.

Bob Swinney


"Boris Beizer" wrote in message
news

"Håken Hveem" wrote in message
...
What is a kaupfmann starter?

It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell..
is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines. I only know that it is called a "Coffman Starter" from
the
original Flight of the Phoenix movie, and from the book by Elleston
Trevor.
I had the spelling wrong. Not a "Kaufman" or "Kaupfmann" starter, but a
"Coffman Starter."

Boris

--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

Boris Beizer wrote:

"Håken Hveem" wrote in message
...


What is a kaupfmann starter?



It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell.. is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines. I only know that it is called a "Coffman Starter" from the
original Flight of the Phoenix movie, and from the book by Elleston Trevor.
I had the spelling wrong. Not a "Kaufman" or "Kaupfmann" starter, but a
"Coffman Starter."

Boris



I think the spelling is Kaufmann, and it was also available as an
emergency starting
technique on the F-4. There were big warnings all over the place where
the cartridge
went to never store the cartridges in the aircraft. I think this
version of the thing looked
more like a 70 mm shell than a shotgun shell.

Jon

Boris Beizer wrote:

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Boris Beizer wrote:


It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell..
is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines.

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.

The burning of the gunpowder in the shotgun shell provided the compressed
gas. Sorry not to have made it clear. That's what I meant.

Boris

Also used in some jets---A British jet that we adopted & changed the wingspan
several times--Reconniasance I think



--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...


Boris Beizer wrote:

"Håken Hveem" wrote in message
...


What is a kaupfmann starter?



It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell..
is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines. I only know that it is called a "Coffman Starter" from
the
original Flight of the Phoenix movie, and from the book by Elleston
Trevor.
I had the spelling wrong. Not a "Kaufman" or "Kaupfmann" starter, but a
"Coffman Starter."

Boris



I think the spelling is Kaufmann, and it was also available as an
emergency starting
technique on the F-4. There were big warnings all over the place where
the cartridge
went to never store the cartridges in the aircraft. I think this
version of the thing looked
more like a 70 mm shell than a shotgun shell.

Jon
There was a story in the local newspaper last year about a guy who found an
'AA gun shell' buried in his garden, later discovered to be 'safe' as it had
no projectile in it; the shell had been in an ammo can and, clear as day on
the side, it still said '......Aircraft engine starting cartridge' (sorry, I
can't remember what aircraft it was). Possibly not quite as safe as he
thought. This was very large, about 3 to 4" in diameter by 10" long, judging
by the photo.
Martin
--
martindot herewhybrowat herentlworlddot herecom

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:53:28 GMT, "Boris Beizer"
wrote:

The only real drama is at the end, the bit with the Kaufman
starters and "wasting" the penultimate cartridge to clear the cylinders. In
the original, Jimmy Steward was visibly shaken and conflicted. This guy
just goes to it with alacrity and no hint of conflict. Steward was an
experience pilot and knew what was what and probably contributed to
believability of the film and to preventing the copious Hollywood goofs that
plagues this sorry rerun.

And the Pheonix that flew in the first film was a real aeroplane.

http://www.securaplane.com/esite/mantz2.html

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Boris Beizer wrote:


It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell..
is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines.

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.
Used on a numer of aircraft engines, not all of them radials (I know early
models of the Rolls Royce Griffon engine used them). I'm also pretty sure
that for some planes (Grumman Hellcat, IIRC) it was the normal way of
starting tme.

Also used for at least one farm tractor

bw wrote:
"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...

Boris Beizer wrote:



It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell..
is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines.

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.
Used on a numer of aircraft engines, not all of them radials (I know early
models of the Rolls Royce Griffon engine used them). I'm also pretty sure
that for some planes (Grumman Hellcat, IIRC) it was the normal way of
starting tme.


Also used for at least one farm tractor


British made Field Marshal's , both tractors and dozers .
Ken Cutt

And this chap has replicated a Coffman starter using .22 catridges for a
model Rolls Royce Eagle.
http://archive.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff...y/croft/eagle/

Jon Elson wrote:



Boris Beizer wrote:

"Håken Hveem" wrote in message
...


What is a kaupfmann starter?



It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun
shell.. is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines. I only know that it is called a "Coffman Starter"
from the
original Flight of the Phoenix movie, and from the book by Elleston
Trevor.
I had the spelling wrong. Not a "Kaufman" or "Kaupfmann" starter,
but a
"Coffman Starter."

Boris



I think the spelling is Kaufmann, and it was also available as an
emergency starting
technique on the F-4. There were big warnings all over the place
where the cartridge
went to never store the cartridges in the aircraft. I think this
version of the thing looked
more like a 70 mm shell than a shotgun shell.

Jon

"Jerry J. Wass" wrote in message
...


Boris Beizer wrote:

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Boris Beizer wrote:


It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun
shell..
is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the
engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for
older
radial engines.

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.

The burning of the gunpowder in the shotgun shell provided the
compressed
gas. Sorry not to have made it clear. That's what I meant.

Boris

Also used in some jets---A British jet that we adopted & changed the
wingspan
several times--Reconniasance I think

And some models of the B52.

Garrett Fulton




-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Whoa! What's that you say, "Lotsa Gas"? No I believe you got the name
right the first time.

I went back to the book by Elleston Trevor and he calls it a "Coffman
starter." Maybe he had it wrong?

Boris

--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

Sorry Boris. I was being facetious. Lotsa gas and the name "Coffman"
reminded me of another RCM poster.

Best regards,

Bob Swinney
"Boris Beizer" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Whoa! What's that you say, "Lotsa Gas"? No I believe you got the name
right the first time.

I went back to the book by Elleston Trevor and he calls it a "Coffman
starter." Maybe he had it wrong?

Boris

--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

Gosh, Boris,

I guess you didn't like it.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

"Boris Beizer" wrote in message
ink.net...

snip excellent review

In article , Robert Swinney says...

Sorry Boris. I was being facetious. Lotsa gas and the name "Coffman"
reminded me of another RCM poster.

I recall this thread happening about five years ago, and IIRC
it was indeed Gary who pointed out the real way those work.
I'm suprised he hasn't commented here.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Jerry J. Wass wrote:

Boris Beizer wrote:


"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...

Boris Beizer wrote:



It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell..

is

fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines.

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.

The burning of the gunpowder in the shotgun shell provided the compressed
gas. Sorry not to have made it clear. That's what I meant.

Boris


Also used in some jets---A British jet that we adopted & changed the wingspan
several times--Reconniasance I think


snip

The Martin B-57 (and the derivative RB-57) twin jet bomber. These were
USA made versions of the British "Canberra" bomber. The biggest obvious
difference was that the Canberra had side-by-side seating for the
cockpit crew, and the Martin version used tandem seating. All were quite
advanced light bombers for the time.

The RD versions were modified with far larger wings, for high altitude
operations. They were sort-of an oversized U2, for photo reconnaissance
spy missions, and high altitude research.

Dan Mitchell
============

Hhhmmnnn, Gary . . . Gary? Now who could that be?

Bob Swinney
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Swinney says...

Sorry Boris. I was being facetious. Lotsa gas and the name "Coffman"
reminded me of another RCM poster.

I recall this thread happening about five years ago, and IIRC
it was indeed Gary who pointed out the real way those work.
I'm suprised he hasn't commented here.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Jon Elson wrote:

Boris Beizer wrote:

"Håken Hveem" wrote in message
...


What is a kaupfmann starter?



It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell.. is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines. I only know that it is called a "Coffman Starter" from the
original Flight of the Phoenix movie, and from the book by Elleston Trevor.
I had the spelling wrong. Not a "Kaufman" or "Kaupfmann" starter, but a
"Coffman Starter."

Boris



I think the spelling is Kaufmann, and it was also available as an
emergency starting
technique on the F-4. There were big warnings all over the place where
the cartridge
went to never store the cartridges in the aircraft. I think this
version of the thing looked
more like a 70 mm shell than a shotgun shell.

Jon

The man responsible was Roscoe Alexander Coffman and his first patent
for the starter was #1776228 granted in 1930. Breeze Corp made starters
under his patents. Bendix-Pioneer were also licensees.

Tom

I have seen some Chinese tractors with an interesting variation- its a
spring starter- you wind up a coil spring with a ratchet and then release it
to spin the motor over-

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.
Used on a numer of aircraft engines, not all of them radials (I know
early
models of the Rolls Royce Griffon engine used them). I'm also pretty
sure
that for some planes (Grumman Hellcat, IIRC) it was the normal way of
starting tme.


Also used for at least one farm tractor


British made Field Marshal's , both tractors and dozers .
Ken Cutt

Different system. The Coffman style starter utilised the gas of
the cartridge to power the starter which rotated the engine.
The Marshalls used a cartridge vented into the cylinder head to
act on the piston to start the engine.

Tom

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:53:28 GMT, "Boris Beizer"
wrote:

Well guys, went to see the remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" yesterday.


The original was a classic and heroic production. Thanks for the warning about
the 'cover version' I won't be tempted by it.


Regards
Mark Rand

Ken Cutt wrote:

bw wrote:
"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...

Boris Beizer wrote:



It is a compressed gas starter. A shell .. looks like a shotgun shell..
is
fired which provides the compressed gas that is used to turn the engine
over. It was, I believe, used as an emergency starting method for older
radial engines.

I don't think it was compressed gas. It was gun powder of some form.
Used on a numer of aircraft engines, not all of them radials (I know early
models of the Rolls Royce Griffon engine used them). I'm also pretty sure
that for some planes (Grumman Hellcat, IIRC) it was the normal way of
starting tme.


Also used for at least one farm tractor


British made Field Marshal's , both tractors and dozers .
Ken Cutt

Different system. The Coffman style starter utilised the gas of
the cartridge to power the starter which rotated the engine.
The Marshalls used a cartridge vented into the cylinder head to
act on the piston to start the engine.

Tom

I saw the original Phoenix, and it was pretty bogus, too. Almost
anything Hollywood produces that has airplanes and flying in it has
some outlandish flight behaviour, pilot talk and mechanical setups. As
a pilot and mechanic, it gets painful sometimes. No wonder the
non-flying public is so misinformed and scared. I would imagine that
Hollywood hires technical advisors to keep the aeronautical themes
accurate, and then ignores their advice anyway. Got to make it
spectacular, you know.

Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
I saw the original Phoenix, and it was pretty bogus, too. Almost
anything Hollywood produces that has airplanes and flying in it has
some outlandish flight behaviour, pilot talk and mechanical setups. As
a pilot and mechanic, it gets painful sometimes. No wonder the
non-flying public is so misinformed and scared. I would imagine that
Hollywood hires technical advisors to keep the aeronautical themes
accurate, and then ignores their advice anyway. Got to make it
spectacular, you know.

How bogus was the original? The actually built a Phoenix and flew it. As I
recall, a stunt pilot got killed in a crash of the Phoenix during the
filming. Beg to differ. Both the book and the movie (original) were well
researched and totally feasible. How about some examples of these putative
errors?

Boris

--

-------------------------------------
Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting
1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance

TEL: 215-572-5580
FAX: 215-886-0144
Email bsquare "at" sprintmail.com

------------------------------------------

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:54:17 -0800, Tom wrote:
Jon Elson wrote:
I think the spelling is Kaufmann, and it was also available as an
emergency starting
technique on the F-4. There were big warnings all over the place where
the cartridge
went to never store the cartridges in the aircraft. I think this
version of the thing looked
more like a 70 mm shell than a shotgun shell.

Jon

The man responsible was Roscoe Alexander Coffman and his first patent
for the starter was #1776228 granted in 1930. Breeze Corp made starters
under his patents. Bendix-Pioneer were also licensees.

Yep, that's the fellow. He's distant kin. His line and mine both come down
from John Coffman. John Coffman was the first blacksmith in Kentucky.
John's grandson Jacob was Roscoe's father.

Roscoe not only invented the Coffman starter, he also invented the first
practical variable prop pitch mechanism. Roscoe's son Morris at one time
owned a chunk of what is now the Vegas strip. He sold it to Howard
Hughes in 1968. I once met Morris at a Coffman family reunion in Henderson
Kentucky.

(We used to have huge family reunions held at Audubon State Park each
August. Coffmans scattered all over the country would come back to attend.
Sadly, that ended a few years after my father died in 1962.)

Gary