Plane Crashes in Desert | Flight of the Phoenix

If you love airplane movies you have seen Flight of the Phoenix. As part of my Hollywood vs Reality series I explain how realistic of a job they did on the film Flight of the Phoenix starring Dennis Quaid and Giovanni Ribisi.
Buy Flight of the Phoenix Movie - geni.us/FlightOfThePheonix
Be Part of the 74 Crew:
IG: / 74gear
Twitter: / 74gear
Facebook: / 74gear
Flight Simulator Gear I use:
Yoke: geni.us/SimYoke
Computer: geni.us/GamingComputer
Flight Gear I use:
Aviation Headset: geni.us/AviationHeadset
Backpack: geni.us/PilotBackpack
Traveling headset: geni.us/DHheadset
Video Gear I use:
Camera: geni.us/VideoCamera
Action Camera: geni.us/Actioncamera
Flight Audio Connector: geni.us/FlightAudio
ND Filter: geni.us/NDFilter
I may receive a commission on some of these links but it will not change the price you pay for the items.
Music: JPB - High [NCS Release]

[@74gear]

Some bloopers or outtakes at the end of the video but thanks for watching and commenting and for all of those who have subscribed, thanks for being part of the 74 Crew!

[@Aviatial]

74 Gear Thank You For posting the videos! 😄

[@74gear]

glad you are enjoying them.

[@j-c4997]

74 Gear thanks!

[@matthewbiddle7187]

74 Gear I love the series it’s awesome please keep them coming also thank you for being interactive with us it’s awesome. Idk if you can or not but maybe do a video in your cockpit of one of the airplanes you are flying and give us a tour

[@airmackeeee6792]

@74 Gear at around 6:50 would the plane still be affected by thermals flying at 7,000 ft over the desert?

[@nickmudd]

I imagine watching a flying movie for you is like an automotive technician watching fast and furious lol

[@spvillano]

Or an AI/robotics type watching Terminator. Loved their weight and balance, 5 people on the wing carrying the heaviest landing gear. Why does Hollywood hire consultants, only to ignore the shit out of them?

[@vespanighthawk3792]

i think it more like watching a kids movie in that it just doesn't make sense in reality

[@samuelmatheson9655]

19 gears and still reving up

[@missyroades4533]

Try being an actual horse trainer and watching horse movies 😵

[@danielsteger8456]

@@spvillano not really, since terminator was about robots from the far future, AI/robotics guy isnt going to find it absurd

[@colbyjones8884]

Worked to restore that plane for the movie. Got to go in the maiden flight after it came out of mothball, one of the highlights of my aviation career. Interesting fact, it was flown from Greybull, WY all the way to Namibia Africa and back for the movie.

[@rogerbartels5223]

Hey man!!! See my comment above. Did you go to Namibia?

[@karlbark]

That is amazing, man ! I really like this movie -just (or mostly) for the plane ! No CGI -a real plane....and a super interesting one to boot 😎 -Cheers from 🇮🇸😃, -K

[@bodhixxx1]

great story man!

[@TheHarleygnuya]

Haven't seen it mentioned here, but in the original 1965 movie, the Phoenix did actually fly. Specially constructed for the movie by Tallmantz Aviation, it was flow by Paul Mantz, one of the most respected stunt pilots in the business, who, unfortunately, died when it broke apart after clipping a hillock while shooting a second take of a scene. In fact, he was memorialized in the closing credits of the film.

[@rbeforme]

Kelsey, I'm no pilot, and I don't aspire to be. But it doesn't take an aviation expert to recognize that your disposition with this movie analogy is incredibly progressive. You are an amazing pilot, no question. Please keep up the good work. You're doing the world an incredible favor. Amazing channel. Amazing.

[@bgore12]

The original is one of the greatest movies made. When they find out that Heinrich is a model plane designer is a stand still moment of horror and gravity. You almost want to stand up and cheer when the engine starts.

[@kenbrown2808]

it bears mentioning that in the making of the original movie, they actually built and flew the phoenix.

[@korbell1089]

@@kenbrown2808 and regrettably the pilot died when the fuselage buckled.

[@kenbrown2808]

@@korbell1089 the fuselage buckled because the pilot crashed it. and the cause of the crash was determined to be the pilot.

[@raisagorbachov]

And yet Heinrich is of an age when he could well have been flying or designing planes for the Luftwaffe in WW2.

[@tombrickhouse-growthmatrix6201]

@@kenbrown2808 In this news reel of the crash, it looks like a hard landing cause the fuselage to buckle.

[@HistoricAeroEngines]

4:12 The "shotgun shells", are Coffman cartridges containing cordite, being loaded into the cartridge breech (vis canister). Once a cartridge is fired, the high pressure discharge gases are directed along piping into a Coffman starter, which engages a dog gear on a driveshaft onto a gear in the engine's wheelcase to turn the engine. The gases are not directed into the combustion chamber. This system was also used on some inline engines as well as radials, and also some early jets (eg Canberra).

[@jamieminton172]

USAF early 80's We were using "Cart Starts" (slang for the Coffman) just to retain proficiency. Hi-Packs or -80 GTC/Gens for air starts was the norm. As we transitioned to the third generation -80 and -86 Hobart gen sets powered the plane on the ground. Even today I believe the 22's and 35's retain the cart starters.

[@jamesglavich1426]

Also this starter was used on at least one farm tractor manufactured in England. I believe it was called Marshall or Field Marshall or something close. It had a large single cyl engine.

[@bcgrittner]

That's the best explanation of the Coffman starter I have ever read. that really cleared up the mystery. Thank you.

[@HistoricAeroEngines]

@@bcgrittner Welcome :-)

[@stevehadfield9519]

Flew a chipmunk in the 60s - inline 4 cylinder , same starter system .

[@williamwalker5326]

In the original "Flight of the Phoenix" 1965, stunt pilot Albert Paul Mantz "Paul Mantz" was killed during a low flying sequence. While filming in Arizona, Mantz clipped a small berm causing the aircraft to break in half and flip over killing Paul instantly. His name appears in the final film credit.

[@ZeroOskul]

Giovanni Ribisi is unbelievably believable in any role. Nice to know he's actually a nice guy.

[@micstonemic696stone]

the original film scene trying to start the engine with few Coffman starters especially when he says clean cylinders ignition off and fires one, Jerry screaming, gets this mighty radial motor running, this scene is some of the best suspense filming of all time. like it if you agree

[@micstonemic696stone]

@Russ Gallagher I didnt know this the first few times I see the scene which was great but mechanical engineering put my understanding of facts differing from a lot of films, truth a engine can run on ignition off not well but they did. it was the best 5 mins ever

[@micstonemic696stone]

also I am constantly reminded it's just a film enjoy it, they are right, who would want to watch something with us if we just picked holes

[@JayDee-xj9lu]

@Russ Gallagher I'm going to have a educated mechanic guess here. When you do a cylinder leak test, you put the piston at the top and put compressed air into the spark plug hole to check for cylinder leaks. But sometimes when it's not perfectly at the top, the piston will push down and rotate the crank fairly quickly. So my guess is that it must be a system that put the expanding air from the catridge into a cylinder with the piston thats on the firing stroke. I think some trucks start on compressed air. You can hear that high pitch scream when they start. Now clearing the cylinder. After a couple of bad starts. The cylinder didn't fire properly so there is still a fuel mixture in the cylinder but at the wrong 13 to 1 optimum fuel to air ratio. Trying to start it again might make it to rich to start. So by clearing out the cylinders it will suck in a fresh air fuel mix. I used to start a ultrlight by hand and if you left the ignition on it was hard to start but it would try to fire up, but if I left the ignition off and crank it over 4 times, and then turn on the ignition,and then it would start intantly on the next hand crank. I loved the first movie. It was much more suspensefull. I loved the bit where he admits to building model airplanes. lol. JD

[@danmartin6921]

@Russ Gallagher a coffman starter uses a piston which runs along, for want of a better description, a rifling in its cylinder. the cartridge is fired, and much like a bullet in a gun the piston travels down the bore as a result, turning in engagement with the rifling. this transfers the linear movement into a rotary one. this drives the starter dog, which is engaged with the matching dog on the engine, turning the engine over and starting it. i can find nothing in the pilots notes for my radial engine that states cylinders must be cleared before another starting attempt, only- and that part is missed from the film, that if a radial has been left unstarted for more than 30 minutes it is procedure to hand turn the engine through an amount of turns equal to amount of cylinders to ensure the lower cylinders have not hydraulicked on oil draining into them, as there is more than enough inertia in the starter to bend a rod trying to start on a hydraulicked cyl.the only further note is that in the event of a start not happening after a full load of cartridges has been fired, 15 minutes must be allowed for the breech to cool before reloading.

[@vitabricksnailslime8273]

@@danmartin6921 But it wouldn't fucken cough man!

[@stevenvicino8687]

Paul Mantz flew the original Phoenix in the '60s. He died on landing it. Read he had a premonition something was going to happen. Left a note to his wife that he'd talk with her later. He never came home.

[@fhuber7507]

It was a low pass where he got too low and drug the landing gear unintentionally.

[@franklinkhama3038]

This film was actually filmed in the namib desert. The namibian desert and I'm from Namibia. So I'm pretty proud that they filmed the film in our desert.

[@dwighthawkins5955]

I mounted the camera support on the right vertical, lower right camera support on the fuselage, and compass on the dash. When the support crew returned to Greybull from Namibia I asked if there was any problems with my installs.They said 'yeah we never used any of that stuff". My 15 minutes of fame and brags evaporated to tears.

[@user-or4hs7xq9u]

Looks like a beautiful but challenging area to live in

[@jona_archi]

14:08 getting a loose prop into the fuselage behind the cockpit actually once happened to a Lockheed Electra over the Pacific Ocean.

[@dred811]

That's true... It was an Australian AP-3C Orion, maritime patrol aircraft (based on the Electra) which was max weight, taking off from Cocos Island, the pilot buzzed the airfield after take-off, to put on a bit of a show, and peeled the leading edges off the wing spar when he pulled up after the fly over. He actually wound in nose up trim on approach, and held the nose down with the yoke, until he completed the pass, then relaxed on the yoke and couldn't gauge the amount of pitch he was putting in. They kept flying and tried to complete a 180 to set it down, but ran out of airspeed and ditched just offshore. When they hit the water, the #2 prop walked off the shaft and through the side of the fuselage. Unfortunately there was a member of the crew in a ditching station, seated on the floor at that part of the fuselage, and he got slapped on the back and killed by one of the blades.

[@goodness9400]

@@dred811 unbelievable. RIP flight attendant who died

[@mandolinic]

Reeve Aleutian Flight 8, Cold Bay Alaska to Seattle, 1983. Propeller came off one engine and ploughed into fuselage, depressurising the plane and jamming flight controls. Pilots managed to gain enough control to land at Anchorage with no casualties.

[@CaptainK007]

Arguing with an engineer is a bit like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you start to realise the pig enjoys it. Signed.. an engineer 😎🚁💨💨💨💨

[@thomaslockard9686]

To Bloody True, the idiots. Never asks the people that make their junk work advice. Even today ,,,,,,heavy sigh. LOL

[@andreyche193]

Wrestling with a pig in mud is hard because it is slippery and kind of round. Then all that you need to do is to attach a few handles here and there to give you something to hold to. That's engineers for you. Of course the solution is not to get into a pig fight. Signed.. a manager.

[@MrGregroberts55]

Engineer joke... Some say a glass is half full others say it is half empty An engineer would say the glass is too big.

[@Strangelove9000]

@@@MrGregroberts55 or the container is operating at 50% capacity.

[@cvpiguy]

Ok babi

[@KB6YAF]

I hate it when Hollywood thinks they can remake a movie that was pretty much GREAT when it was first made.

[@kurtsnyder4752]

THBBBBBBBBBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!(Raspberry noise)..........................Like to see a flick about Hermione Granger and The Boy Who Lived (see entry under fanfiction) and her adventures while training at Harworts the British school for spies where she and her pals Harry and Ron were , unbeknownst to them, being positioned to be the youngest Double Os to be ready for service at graduation at 18 years old and able to do 25 years of duty, much greater than the usual 7 or so for each of the Os, like the ones called "Bond" before they age out. Have had some femme operatives before: Modesty Blaise, Honor "Honey" West, Natasha "Black Widow" Romanov,Jinx-Die Another Day-Johnson Fathom Harvill. and Sydney Bristow among others, though some have not been shown in the best of ways . "Feminazi" ( at least you capitalised it) is a term for strong minded womyn created by small(in so, so many ass-pects) males( not "men" as these aren't and never will have the maturity to BE "Men"). Po widdle guys so scared of bad old mommy.

[@guyneault5054]

@Vladimir_Bone Spur_tRump Both stretched the imagination quite thin, but were good Sunday afternoon entertainment.

[@MemorialRifleRange]

@VIPFlight Truth.....

[@Sertao2013]

Its even worse when the government gets involves to make the 9/11 movie and then tell everyone it was real . Something hit the building but it wasn't passenger planes .

[@markmaki4460]

@Vladimir_Bone Spur_tRump Actually they have only run out of ideas that they want to bring to the screen. The dump is dominated by leftists, feminists and egotists. The good ideas that will bring in the money they are as likely to produce as Lenin would have been likely to open a department store. And btw - we have never seen real feminism. We have rather seen women who want to want to assume male roles. This is not feminism; this is masculinism

[@screamingduck619]

Kelsey, you didn't mention anything about all the papers flying around the cabin as you normally point out in other movies when there's a cabin breach. I'm beginning to think the leading cause of explosive decompressions in aircraft is having reams of paper sitting around the cabin.

[@davecrupel2817]

"The only flaw is we have to rely on you to fly it." Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh......

[@sgtvoro]

20:42 I think the wing that was originally attached to the engine was containing the fuel, and the other was empty, as it was broken and attached crudely. So maybe the more people on that side was to balance the fuel on the other? Dunno', just an idea.

[@justanoman6497]

This was my thought too, or something to the effect. The two wings are not the same, so the plane is out of balance to begin with. This is even visible in the front view, with one wing starting higher(the side that was attached to the original body, as the center of plane was higher). So having an uneven distribution could be better. What I don't get is how they determined what the distribution should be or if they just winged it. Because I doubt they could test it and that's something that would be incredibly difficult to calculate. Though I guess they might have just did a best effort ball park and then adjust in flight via control surfaces.

[@demonsluger]

isnt that stated in the movie?

[@cipher88101]

Maybe due to engine torque.

[@Samken5]

@@justanoman6497 hehe, "winged it"

[@Vessekx]

It’s kinda breezed over in the movie, but they ‘sat’ people on the wings to (as best as possible) give the plane a ‘neutral’ balance, helping counteract torque from the single engine and shift the centers of mass & lift more in line with one another.

[@0IDaveCouch]

Just because you can remake a movie, doesn't mean you should remake a movie.

[@avlisk]

Look for Casablanca 2020 and Citizen Kane II coming soon to a theater near you. Now in color and Dolby Surround!

[@mrblowhard2u]

Here's a thought.....why don't Hollywood take a film that was a 'bomb' and remake it? They could correct all the crap that made it a piece of crap and improve it. Who knows it could be a hit. For example: 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'....I know, I know... it's a "classic" but, only because it was so bad. It was filled with horrible props, redictulious acting and cheap sets. I saw the original when I was a teen and thought it was terrible at the time and still can't watch it all the way thru even though it has a following of tens of thousands of fans worldwide. Correct its mistakes and it might be a pretty good sci-fi movie....who knows?

[@CathodeRayTube99]

@@mrblowhard2u Plan 9 From Outer Space, eh? I'll have to watch that now!

[@elkhunter8664]

@@CathodeRayTube99 Hollywood with a 100 million dollar budget could not remake Plan 9 better than the original. But maybe they will try, Hollywood has become a wasteland.

[@timesthree5757]

@@mrblowhard2u Which is what they did. The first one sucked.

[@JoshuaMichail0]

In college long, long ago, I took theatre classes and one of the very first things we were taught was how important it is to foster a "willing suspension of disbelief" in the audience. Part of it depends on creating plausible, if not entirely realistic, depiction of details. Apparently, the writers, producers, and director on that film thought they could just depend on the audience to have an inherent abundance of willingness to suspend their disbelief. Lol

[@michaelberry950]

This very C-119 is currently sitting at the Buckeye airstrip west of Phoenix. Appears to be somewhat near flight ready. You can walk right up and touch it as I did at the Copperstate fly in last month

[@lincbond442]

The original 1965 film did an amazing job of building tension. This is especially true in the scene when they are trying to get the engine started and are running out of the starter cartridges. Everyone in the Jimmy Stewart film was superb, especially the navigator who is dealing with his own personal struggles.

[@Trainfan1055Janathan]

This reminds me of "Madagascar 2" for some reason.

[@skaida]

Yeah. The planes look kinda simular. And the desert.

[@EBieda]

Hi

[@Trainfan1055Janathan]

@@EBieda Hello.

[@pjimmbojimmbo1990]

"Madagascar 2" was more Realistic than this Movie

[@samerazfar5075]

The plane looks similar

[@ramanshsharma3991]

When you just came back to this video to watch the bloopers! :)))

[@redlock4004]

"Hey 74 crew, If you don't know me, I'm Kelsey." Hey Kelsey, everybody knows you :)

[@NoName-zn1sb]

If you _do_ know him, who is he??!?

[@mmckee58]

Yeah, well everyone knew who James Brown was, when I saw him a few years before he passed, but they would still open the show with James Who??? James WHO??? It's so Kelsey doesn't have to land right on the KZbin numbers which is a bad habit to get into because...

[@CenlaFrogman]

I couldn't remember the channel name and thanks to hearing his name the few times I've watched his videos, it popped right up when I searched "747 Kelsey". So, there is a benefit to it. :) Now, I made sure to subscribe so I don't have to do that again.

[@blakethaboss5120]

ㅤ

[@treeguyable]

Just stumbled on this channel. So, not everyone knows Chelsea. But, I expect everyone to know who I know, pretty much because all those people are pretty important.

[@24juan68]

Jimmy Stuart version was much better

[@donkeyslayer4661]

One reason for that is Jimmy Stewart flew bombers in WW II. He was real pilot. There was authenticity in his portrayal of the pilot.

[@ashtonm5494]

didn’t expect to see JBG on the aviation side of youtube

[@carinapowered995]

The Flight of the Phoenix, Release date: December 15, 1965 (USA), James Stewart as pilot.

[@edadan]

@@donkeyslayer4661 - Dennis Quaid is also a "real" pilot. He owned and flew a Citation jet. Not sure what he flies now, but he's the real deal.

[@eutimiochavez415]

Yes sir remakes are not as good yak

[@scottjones9451]

I had to fight the urge to gouge my eyes out after watching the remake of that fantastic movie. I really believe that people have forgotten how to make a good movie.

[@jameskellinger8314]

"I had to fight the urge to gouge my eyes out after watching the remak" LOL

[@freddieNyack]

good laugh thanx......... Introduce someone to the classic and enlighten them.

[@toasterhavingabath6980]

I just like the plane

[@MrOverfloater]

​@L E this is the remake

[@marilynman]

Can you explain why this movie is so bad (according to you)? I've seen both, and I don't particularly dislike the new version.

[@Bolivar_Shag_Nasty]

Bahahaha! I just came back here to watch the bloopers at the end after you mentioned it in one of your newer vids! Love it!

[@scottdelnero7360]

This is becoming my favorite channel. The editing and commentary analysis is very well done.

[@thomaspc2]

Okay the original Flight of the Phoenix was way better than this remake. The cast of the original was just so awesome Jimmy Stewart Sir Richard Attenborough Peter Finch George Kennedy Hardy Kruger. It's just a more realistic film and without all the Hollywood BS

[@vincesbardella3838]

Dan Duryea.

[@kennance115]

hollywood should get back to making great movies and get out of politics.

[@oceanhome2023]

Ken Nance And P.C.

[@robertreese321]

Earnest Borgnine

[@paulh7589]

If I saw George Kennedy anywhere near me I would run like hell. He makes planes go down, causes ships to capsize, skyscrapers to burn, and he causes earthquakes. Yep, if I ever saw him I would head in the opposite direction rapidly!

[@ropersonline]

1:50: "Windows, doors and hatches:" 'Closed and secured, so no-one can disturb us.' 1:57: No wait, they're open again.

[@Warriorking.1963]

I think that was deliberate, the windows were never closed, they were essentially mocking the safety rules.

[@methira]

I learned literally everything from this channel. Thanks alot kelsey ❤️💯

[@Yggdrasil42]

Thanks for including the bloopers. Always fun to see.

[@bradwatson7324]

A remake that didn't need making. The original was perfect.

[@74gear]

well how did you like my movie review of flight of the phoenix?

[@higgydufrane]

@@74gear I thought your review was great. I thought the actual movie was a series of cringe-worthy moments. I Always look forward to your next video. Thanks

[@larrynunnery7914]

The remake was 2 hours of my life, that I will never get back- it took one really arrogant producer to think they could come close to the orginal!

[@lockednloaded7830]

I remember wondering if their fabrication job was in any way realistic

[@garyjones5272]

@@lockednloaded7830 In the '65 movie they built a real flyer out of three different planes that actually flew.

[@zigwald]

the 1965 version is a million times better than this turkey....

[@TheWolfsnack]

Yup.......and as a small note...there were no women in the original cast, even the one female character was played by a male...

[@avnrulz8587]

Which is why I haven't watched this version.

[@TheWolfsnack]

@tinwoods I could give a shit....I was only mentioning a fact about the original movie, the only woman role in the film was a male actor. I am certainly not anti-woman...

[@tyronejefforeillyramirez7961]

concur a million times

[@davejohnson1819]

@@avnrulz8587 find it and watch it, it's great!

[@shelby1043]

Love your facial expressions. Rockn along with the music at the start and then all your reactions. After watching these videos I'm just happy and positive because I have been laughing so hard. Your bloopers are classic as well. So glad I found your channel.

[@davidmichels9454]

Thank you for this! The original is definitely one of my favorite movies and I'm not big on reboots but this one was fairly decent actually it was quite good! And thank you for all your videos I am not a pilot but I find Aeronautics very fascinating and you as well

[@krush300]

So that right there is a sand wedge and he’s practicing hitting shots out of a bunker. Normally you’re not trying to hit those 300 yards you’re just trying to get back on the fairway/green. As Lebowski would say “obviously you’re not a golfer”😂

[@brianmcdaid3178]

In making the original Flight of the Phoenix, they actually built and flew that thing. It was flown by Paul Mantz who was killed while flying a second take. He struck the top of a hill and while trying to recover, the aircraft broke in two and nosed over killing Mantz instantly. We lost a truly great aviator in that accident.

[@micstonemic696stone]

I am very sorry to hear this brave pilot lost his life in the 1965 film I will never view this film the same again what a hero for aviation my apologies to the family of this brave soul I understand the difficulty of what must have been hot and high flight may RIP.

[@carrollshelby8690]

Paul Mantz also did the flying in It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. He flew that Beech 18 through an open hangar at what is now Charles M Schultz Airport and through a Coca Cola billboard that was supposed to have been built out of balsa wood.... The builders didn't get the note about using balsa.

[@micstonemic696stone]

@@carrollshelby8690 thanks for the info am unaware of the film again respect to this fallen aviator

[@iloverush123]

@@carrollshelby8690 I'm glad someone mentioned that movie, I think I remember reading he had to get the Beech 18 certified for aerobatics to do the stunts in the movie. That's got some of the best flying and stunt driving of all time in it.

[@carrollshelby8690]

@@iloverush123 That open ended hangar is still at what is now Charles M. Schultz Airport. (Yes, the creator of Peanuts.)

[@pen4tenn]

Love the bloopers. Thanks for the video.

[@corjp]

I liked the bloopers and outtakes 😊 , thanks for sharing

[@danpatterson8009]

The one thing that gets me about either version is having the "passengers" lying on top of the wing behind windshields. Good for cinematography, but forget about getting any lift from that portion of the wing. Either the passengers should have been stuffed in the fuselage or at least huddled around the wing roots to minimize interference with airflow across the top of the wing.

[@davidhutchison3343]

In the book, the passengers were strapped to either side of the fuselage, which made so much more sense.

[@jamieminton172]

I had the same thought of the original (the best) and this wacky reincarnation. That is a lot of drag with those "wind screen" spoilers. Having said that, that low pressure turbulence would glue a body to the wing and as we all know.... Put a big enough engine on an outhouse... IT WILL FLY! case in point the beautiful and venerable F-4 Phantom.

[@AaronShenghao]

Well the wings are carrying at most 10% of the weight they were designed to carry (they lost all the cargo, the heavy fuselage, most of the fuel, most of cables/electrical/fuel system, and a heavy engine). So having the passengers on the wing isn't that big of a problem, Plus I assume they trying to avoid further damage the boom, which is certainly a good idea in that situation.

[@chrisleyland2110]

The whole "windscreens on the wing" is not going to work from an aerodynamic pov. Just Hollywood. I know there is not much lift needed, but that is just like trying to fly with a wing full of spoilers. particularly out of balance being unsymmetrical. A car won't fly, because it has 2000 thrust, its a crash! the original was better... but the review was on this one... maybe a review on the original? a layer of ice on the wing, can bring down a plane, a layer of people... Hollywood

[@peregreena9046]

@Pavel Manzhetov actually, they were not mannequins, they were flat plywood cutouts painted to look that way.

[@Stoney3K]

19:29 "When this sucker reaches 88 knots, you're gonna see some serious shit!"

[@cvpiguy]

Stoney3K lol bttf reference

[@pattmahiney]

I came for the bloopers but watched the whole thing 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ Lmfao!!! After everything that happened on the descent, I was like, "there's no way anything can be more unrealistic than this." They really outdid themselves with the music/rebuild scene and so did you, Kelsey!! Them bopping to royalty-free music is sublime. I love the edit 😂😂

[@TrainsKanesPlanes]

Yes! I would fly if a modeler deigned the craft. So long as the two pilots okayed the final construction. Great reviews btw, I’m officially hooked on your commentaries!

[@arturama8581]

Thanks for putting your trust in me as a modeller.

[@darykinnaman2319]

The 1965 version showed the brutality of the desert as a survival situation.

[@WCM1945]

As opposed to the party atmosphere that DESTROYED the remake.

[@wolfmanjack3451]

Jimmy Stewart did pilot the Phoenix it's clear in the climactic take off,Paul Mantz did the airborne scenes..Mantz was killed when the Phoenix rolled over broke apart on landing. Practical effects far outshine the fake overdone CGI,poor Dennis Quaid..Rookie directors!

[@kwils6685]

I enjoyed the 1965 version far more than the remake.

[@aserta]

@@wolfmanjack3451 Except, that's not CGI, and it's an actual flying scale model(s, as in both variants flew as large scale RC planes)...how's that foot tasste? Everything in the movie is credible, including the prop flying forward and embedding itself into the fuselage, which happened to an Electra in 1983. So...what's your point? That you've no clue whatsoever about what you're assplaining?

[@Catcrumbs]

@@aserta Presumably you are referring to Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8? The prop in that case did not strike the fuselage forward of the engines, nor did it embed itself in the fuselage. It was never recovered.

[@Mercari1964]

About the prop coming off and into the fuselage: that happened to my father when he was training on a B-17 at Tulare (I think) in 1942. When getting ready to take off, the inside right prop came off and spun into the fuselage behind him and his co-pilot, kiiling the radio man. It was very traumatic for my father who, when he 19, was getting ready to go to Europe for the Army Air Corps (he was a weather recon pilot): the crew member died in my father's arms. Trust me, the old props did come off the engine and cut into the fuselage.

[@kenthomas4668]

his point was it would go backwards not speed up and come forward.

[@anmolbehl1883]

@@kenthomas4668 Well the propeller going forward makes sense. While after separation it will rapidly slow down, however, it is still generating a high amount of thrust while it rotates while not having to pull a plane anymore. The forward thrust acting on the plane reduces, slowing it down and the mass being pulled by the propeller reduces substantially more than the loss of thrust due to the slow down of the propeller. I hope you understand how the propeller accelerating away from the plane makes sense.

[@arturama8581]

​@@anmolbehl1883 Not going to happen. You're thinking wrong. The prop itself doesn't generate any power, the motor does. The moment the prop comes off, it's going to change from a propeller to a 4-bladed frisbee, doing 200+ mph. As no propeller is 100% balanced, a 4-bladed prop is going to veer off, like the formentioned frisbee. Probably hitting the motor or the wing, possibly hitting the fuse, but behind it's original position. Think of it as when you're cruising in your car and a wheel comes off. That wheel isn't going to overtake you unless you slow down or are driving down hill. As the plane in the movie is in a dive, it's not likely to slow down by loosing propulsion on one side. The situation Mercari1964 describes, is entirely different. The plane was stationary, prepairing for take off.

[@Peter_Cordes]

@@arturama8581 - The prop spinning is what pulls the whole plane forward (unless the engine is at idle, and the prop is actually contributing drag overall). If the plane is no longer attached to hold back the thrust of the prop, it will accelerate it's own comparatively-tiny mass forward relative to the plane, for a quick burst of speed until more of its angular momentum has been turned into forward linear momentum. It's still a propeller with aerodynamic prop blades on it. Not sure what your point was with the car tire analogy, or mentioning that the plane was in a dive. That's the *only* time when you *can* expect a prop to not shoot ahead is when you're diving with engines at idle, so the prop isn't spinning fast. Air is coming past the prop faster than the "screw angle" or whatever you call it, so the prop is slowing the plane down instead of speeding it up. (I guess if you put the engine to idle in level flight and are currently losing speed, the prop would be going slow without diving.) If you mean that the *plane* isn't likely to slow down while in a dive, that's correct but mostly irrelevant.

[@Phantom121904]

@@Peter_Cordes Exactly. A good example might be those little propeller toys you find in museum gift shops. You have a plastic propeller attached to some device that spins it up to speed. You'd feel a small amount of force against your hand as the propeller is trying to pull you up with it. As soon as you release the propeller, it shoots up.

[@b.w.22]

This movie has a special place in my heart. It’s a remake, but it’s also somehow the most 2004 thing in the world, down to “Hey Ya” playing and all the characters, from middle management to the street dude with the eyepatch. Trying to hit all the demographics! Yet, it’s somehow actually exciting and so super cheesy and great all at once. I’d forgotten how good the flight scenes were: the 10000 ft view of the plane in the storm is wonderful at showing the scale of the problem they’re in. Good show, Mr. Townes.

[@jameswhite9025]

As a 20 year NAVY Flight Engineer I couldn't agree more with your comment on having fun in the Flight Station with a tight nit crew, loved every moment of my flying career, flew with some great people and characters!

[@daytonaflorida2247]

The first version with Jimmy Stewart was better than the remake.

[@74gear]

well I will see how this one does in the youtube world and if people like it I will work on the 1965 version. Thanks for watching though Daytona. 👍

[@daytonaflorida2247]

No, understand I enjoyed your video. I thought it was very good. I was just commenting that the 1965 version was a much better movie. I liked your video and thought you did a good job. I was making a comment about the two movies, not your video.

[@zemlidrakona2915]

That's an understatement.

[@ScienceChap]

Having Jimmy Stewart, WW2 USAAF B24 Liberator bomber pilot and US Air Force Brigadier General as the lead pilot certainly gave the original a lot more credibility and gravitas.

[@tom7601]

The sad part was losing Paul Mantz during the filming of the original. My father flew with Paul out of March Field (March Air Force base), before the war (WWII).

[@fhuber7507]

1965 version, they actually built the airplane and flew it. It crashed during filming, killing the pilot. But it flew for a long time. I was a low pass dragging the landing gear that caused the crash. The film of the cobbled together aircraft was real.

[@pcbondart]

The pilot was Paul Mantz. As I recall, that is why yoou don't see the plane actually land inn the film . . .

[@TomJones-uf5sl]

Paul Mantz was killed when the landing gear hit a tuft of desert brush and sand. The aircraft stumbled over the desert terrain, and the fuselage broke in half right behind the pilot position. The front half flipped over end over end, literally smashing Mantz head first into the desert floor. The entire sequence was filmed and the film can be found online. Paul Mantz was a really interesting guy who at one time owned the largest private air force in the world. He bought hundreds of surplus WW2 airplanes, and many thought he was crazy, but most of them came fueled with expensive aircraft gasoline which he then sold at a substantial profit. He made out very well along with his partner Frank Tallman, and they became the 'go-to' aviation movie filming firm in the '50's and '60's. Mantz's death was really unfortunate.

[@burlatsdemontaigne6147]

F Huber ____ They didn't build a real plane. They added some bits to a standard aircraft to make it resemble the plane in the film. The rest is models and effects.

[@billpennock8585]

​@@burlatsdemontaigne6147 No, in the original version they built a real plane. Yes there were some parts of other planes but there was ALOT that was custom designed by Otto Timm. The plane was called the Tallmanz Phoenix P-1 and received an airworthyness certificate from the FAA. There was a modified second version used for static shots in the original moving but the flying one was an original built airplane

[@autografzwei4534]

@@billpennock8585 Correct - it was the first and only time that they constructed and certified an airplane for a movie - just one of its kind. After it was broken, a hastily modified other plane was used to take the last shots in the air. It can be easily distinguished from the correct plane, although it was now only shown in very short and distant sequences.

[@mmckee58]

awesome K. bloopers were great. Yeah , I'd fly on that plane, but I'm a droner. All your videos have made me better at flying drones. Thank you so much.

[@jeanmm2996]

So funny! I like how you present these!

[@fiskie49]

I would much rather have seen a review of the 1965 Aldrich version. Is it possible you could do that?

[@jnichols3]

For the 1965 movie 2 flying aircraft were actually built. The first built was designed to look as if it had been built using scavanged components from a C-82 (type AC used in the movie). That "Phoenix" did not actually use any C-82 components. It had a custom fuselage with other parts from a T-6 Texan, C-45 Expeditor, and a L-17 Navion. Unfortunately it crashed during film, killing pilot Paul Mantz. The second "Phoenix" was a modified O-47 that was built to complete filming. It was very unconvincing as C-82 derived machine. Strangely a non-flying third "Phoenix" used for ground filming was built using C-119 (AC type used in the 2004 remake) components including a functional engine.

[@wrecklass]

Yep, Paul Mantz had been a friend of my father's. My father flew for United at the time. I remember my father had trouble watching the movie because of that memory.

[@jnichols3]

I can imagine so.

[@SKraus-pb1ii]

A always learned a lot about aviation from your videos - thanks a lot

[@garywatts8543]

Yes, loved the bloopers!

[@TheTeufelhunden68]

I love the original version, and I do enjoy this one. Thank you for having fun and not trashing it. Also, I was military and trusted you guys to keep us alive. Our lives were literally in your hands.

[@xjcrossx]

What do you mean by that? Just curious.

[@gordon-bettietwa1537]

Loved the review. I am an aeronautical Engineer and worked in test my whole career , everything from aircaraft to missiles , to the moon rocket to nuclear reactors. and I certainly agree with you. Keep it up. Gordon Twa

[@keishaw5949]

I'm here because of the bloopers 😂

[@srb9767]

Excellent video! I don’t usually leave a like (mainly because I forgot) but the moment I clicked on one of your videos I remembered!

[@THELIFEOFPRICE]

Love the videos man! Keep up the great work =D

[@AJRAcoustics]

Yes

[@yanxuan4101]

In fact, propeller comes off from the engine and cut into cabin did happen in 1983, the flight name is Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8

[@sdaiwepm]

Presumably at the wing or behind it, not all the way up front near the cockpit.

[@bene5431]

I can imagine the propeller cut into the Cockpit. If it doesn't have to pull the plane with it it might go quite a bit faster than the plane. What definitely won't happen is the propeller rotating faster after it comes off. Also I can't imagine it coming off just because of a sandstorm, must be bad maintenance too

[@medinachete73]

Nope, it was the plane lacking of that propeller, and scratching the ground that do separates the prop from the plane. The prop continues the same, but without dragging the whole fuselage, it detaches "forward". Then the prop, free of it axis, hit the ground, changing drastically its direction, and decapitates the plane. MHO.

[@medinachete73]

@@bene5431 Think about it, It's the same as Homer Simpson jumping out or the car, rolling down the hill, hitting a rock, and getting in the car again!!

[@johnnyfire3860]

Nacho Medina yep, thats exactly it

[@-Radium-]

The bloopers are hilarious!

[@creedonjm]

loved the bloopers

[@paulmoffat9306]

In the original Phoenix movie, the 'Kick Starter' that you mentioned, was called a Coffman Starter.

[@DougHanchard]

Correct. First used to start high compression diesel engines. Coffman starters were popular on agricultural equipment.

[@borisjohnson1944]

yep, and they really aren't shotgun shells.

[@DougHanchard]

@@borisjohnson1944 Many use the exact same cartridge specifications as a 12 or 16 ga shotgun shell.

[@olddog610]

Actually, no. It was 4 gauge filled with cordite.

[@jeredhersh789]

@@olddog610 not all were 4ga. Agriculture equipment usually used 12 or 16ga blanks since those were the most common at the time

[@EtzEchad]

This looks like an incredibly stupid movie. Since the original was great, I'm not going to bother seeing this one. Why can't Hollywood come up with a new movie anymore?

[@peterdurnien9084]

Well its what Hollywood does best now its got no one with imagination, copy something. If it's a war movie from WW2 era say the desert rats change all the story to be an American outfit.

[@oliversmith9200]

Nope. The artists have been run off by the accountants.

[@pcbondart]

Holleyweird is too focused on politics!

[@chefmatthammerschmidt8408]

Hollywood producer: "Does not compute"

[@syhcoach]

Because Hollywood needs to remake old politically incorrect movies to the "correct" ethnic and sexual character balance.

[@insanebmxthomas]

"Windows, doors, and hatches..." "Closed, so no-one can disturb us" *as the plane parades down the runway with the windows wide open* 1:50

[@paulgabrielbruma6712]

Ok , but could you hear anyone from these engines sounds ? Even with a open window ?

[@sugarpoultry]

Came back to watch the bloopers haha! Your eye roll, tho.

[@pops91710]

As a life-long aviation buff, and a seven-year veteran of the USAF, I can say with all honesty I could/would walk out of this movie for the very reasons you cited. I am very critical of non-realistic aviation movies and see no entertainment value in their silly portrayals. As good as Top Gun was, I didn't come away from it impressed with the way they portrayed fighter pilots. I worked right alongside F4 pilots in Vietnam and Thailand and every single one of them was professional in spirit and mind when they took to the skies. Thanks for your great "Reality vs Hollywood" series. It's refreshing to see someone with real-world experience making these.

[@iAmerican_Idiot]

Do Air Force One, since you’re a 747 pilot it’ll be fun on your take on some of crazy action scenes like the refueling or when the Migs attacks them.

[@74gear]

ya I have it on my computer I will eventually get there ... thanks for watching 👍

[@Andrei2000PC]

I am excited!

[@eddiedulko4937]

Totally agree!!! To the best of my knowledge a 747 burns approx 7 tons of Kerosene on take off & approx a tonne per hour in flight. Since a jet of that calibre requires to have only X amount of fuel on board to land for safety reasons. How is it that the terrorists have enough fuel to get the plane back up in the air after careering through the airport in formula one fashion??? Typical Hollywood : long on drama,short on science!!!

[@smilingbandit6900]

@Cataclysmic Dildoser she has alot of mass^^

[@vargr]

@@eddiedulko4937 short on good actors too. And lets not forget brains.

[@erics5572]

11:20 made perfect sense, very well explained dude. I know it's 2 years on but eh, maybe you'll see it, just letting you know I appreciate the explanation.

[@LoneWoIfPack19]

My favorite scene from the original is when a member of the military says "I'll walk for help. I was trained to walk with equal strides. This way I won't walk in a circle, like one of you would." (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the most ridiculous statement I've heard)

[@rafaelpenacho]

I had an aerodynamics professor during my graduation who used (I believe he still uses) to say that, if you provide enough thrust and a proper angle of attack, even a cow can fly. The thing is even though that thing could fly, I would not expect it to be controllable at all.

[@tom7601]

The F-4 Phantom was a flying brick, almost zero glide...

[@aserta]

That's an RC, all the scenes you see, including the propeller flying and embedding itself into the fuselage, the Phoenix, it's all practical effects. I think they had something like five of them for various shots. So it flies. And according to the RC operators, it flew quite well.

[@mikerusbyvr6045]

would the cow be wearing wings though?

[@zerofoord6497]

When landing in that environment with the sand I'd actually go gear up as the landing gear could dig into the terrain and flip or bring the aircraft to a sudden stop wear as your more likely to slide with the gear up and reduce the chances of flipping the aircraft

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

But then you wouldn't be able to make the Phoenix and fly out! You would ruin the whole story!

[@jimmcmahon217]

In most airplanes that would be true. But due to the configuration of the C-119, the fuselage pod had a tendency to dig in or tuck under the wing with corresponding disasterous consequences for the occupants. At least that's what I was told when being checked out in the old bird...

[@scottc1857]

@@jimmcmahon217 yup the flying box car is an odd aircraft

[@patagualianmostly7437]

Zero Foord: That occurred to me too... But also: What's the top speed of this plane?..... Pretty sure it would have come to a stop much sooner than depicted in this COS.

[@patagualianmostly7437]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer They succeeded!

[@TheNightowl001]

In Journal of Business Cases and Applications, , by James Schaefer and Katherine L. Kleindorfer, University of Evansville, it states that: "The Flight of the Phoenix (Aldrich & Blake, 1965; Aldrich et al., 2004; Dudley-Smith, 1964) is based on a real-life event from World War II in which a twin-engine cargo plane crashed in the desert. In the actual incident, the flight mechanic was able to construct a one-engine plane that was flown with six men strapped to a wing to an allied base (Bart, 1965). I read the book long before I ever saw the movie, and the book was fantastic.

[@joelubbe6029]

Used to be a driller and the pipes on the plane would explain the reason for not getting higher and the momentum carried in the crash. Thanks for the great review! 😊

[@PepeK62]

How about reviewing the original "Flight Of The Phoenix"?

[@k1productions87]

unfortunately there wasn't a lot to show in the original

[@Shadowman820]

@@k1productions87 maybe but James Stewart was actually a pilot in the war I think .

[@k1productions87]

@@Shadowman820 True, but I was talking about the actual scenes of flight in the original movie. Not much visually to comment on.

[@stulop]

The original was a book?

[@PepeK62]

@@stulop Yes, a novel by Elleston Trevor from 1964. The original film by the same name should be reviewed also.

[@yyc2987]

"5 people on the one wing and 2 on the other...weight balance...." Did we forget stored fuel in that wing? Bam! Lol I learned something from EVERY other video of yours. Keep up the amazing videos!

[@chanceremmy1629]

I love the bloopers at the end!! XD

[@patrickfreeman8257]

Love the outtakes. It's almost as much fun as a Pixar movie

[@CanadairCL44]

A good short lecture on "Human Factors in Aviation" Thanks for taking the time to post this video! Clear skies and tailwinds!

[@martymcmannis9121]

Thanks for the video. You are already funnier than the movie. That's why I love watching your videos. Keep up the great work.

[@74gear]

Thanks appreciate the support Marty!!

[@sharksrbetter]

I love the bloopers at the end if you could keep doing those that would be amazing

[@tomjones2348]

This is the first I've seen of the remake. Looks like they hired the Pixar crew for the story/board and script. The characters act like they're at a beach party...when in fact, a desert can kill you very fast. The original with Jimmy Stuart and Ernest Borgnine is very well done. In that film, the characters are in a pressure cooker, racing against time to survive. This remake reminds me of Hollywood redoing "True Grit". Great presentation, Kelsey!

[@jremy7]

Love the 'Hollywood vs Reality' series. Might suggest taking on 'Executive Decision' from 1996.

[@74gear]

its on my computer to do Jremy... slowly working my way there!

[@b.bhandari5673]

Today you seem very active and happy. Happy to see that

[@74gear]

Thanks Bhuban, I appreciate it. 👍

[@FlyWithStella]

I’ve been giving him pointers 😉🤪

[@davidniemi4051]

The blooper outtakes are funny, thanks 🙂

[@Glen.Danielsen]

Nice C-119 photography! 💛

[@themidsouthcyclist8880]

This movie was so bad that I was rooting for them all to be killed. Give me the original Jimmy Stewart version any day (with actual acting, writing, and realism).

[@davefoc]

There are people as old as I am that watch youtube videos?

[@bamahama707]

The original was a believable film...

[@themidsouthcyclist8880]

@@bamahama707 Believable and credible.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

Yes, just about what I was thinking. All I've seen of this regurgitation is what is in this video, but it's stupid AF. Are we supposed to think this is 1943, or 2003? I can't decide, and obviously they can't, either. Either way, this video is straining at gnats. GMAB. Just move on. This remake is crap, and insulting to the original.

[@scottmueller5995]

The realism is that Jimmy Stewart was a pilot , he flew B24's in WW2 .

[@hueyiroquois3839]

18:52 I don't know much about golf, but I'm pretty sure that it's difficult to get out of a sand trap.

[@PongoXBongo]

The difficulty is getting out of a sand trap _with control._ A solid whack should still give you decent (ish) distance. My guess is that the character in the movie was intentionally holding back to practice aim and/or be able to easily collect the balls.

[@DarkSyster]

This movie was a remake of a movie which was based on a book which was based on a real life event. The real life event involved a military aircraft, and the person who figured out that they could build a plane from the parts of the wreck was a military aircraft mechanic. The only thing that really came from the real event was that it was possible to build "The Phoenix" and fly it.

[@Aero2045]

the hotel your staying in is nice! btw i love ur channel!

[@jamesarmstrong6008]

I’ve seen both movies. The original was much, much better than the remake. In the original, The Phoenix was actually flown.

[@garywheeler7039]

It was actually flown, crashed, and killed the pilot! One engineering flub, is the struts and cross wires shown on the top of the wing. These are actually not effective and are pulling the wing in the opposite direction! Having them under the wing would have made more sense if they were intended for bracing purposes. Of course if they were there just to hold onto that is another matter.

[@genius1a]

@@garywheeler7039 it's true that back then the pilot died, and that is really sad. But on the remake they could have fit dummies on it and fly it remote controlled. And if you want to stay away from the cost and make it digital, just try to avoid unnecessary exeggeration and use it for nice framing and different viewpoints instead. It's the touch of realism the makers of the movie refused to put into that remake on many occasions. Its so much "Hollywood" that my head refuses to dive into it.

[@youtuuba]

James Armstrong, they did NOT actually fly the "Phoenix" in the original movie, if by "Phoenix" you are referring to the airplane that was seemingly "built" during the filming of the movie. The plane that is seen flying was actually two somewhat smaller planes that were made out of old fighter, or similar, WWII airplanes. Neither plane that was flown had crashed in the desert, neither was rebuilt out of pieces of the original crashed plane. One of those two flying planes did eventually crash, killing the pilot (and it did not crash due to lack of airworthiness, but rather because a landing skid caught and dug into the ground, flipping it over on its back)....the pilot may well have survived this, except his upper body was sticking out of the top of the plane, and for appearances there could be no safety cage since it would not have matched the fictional Phoenix, and the poor guy could not survive a plane slamming down on top of him.

[@jamesarmstrong6008]

@@youtuuba Very true. Paul Mantz was the pilot and had built and flown the plane shown flying in the movie. He was killed during a retake of the flight.

[@L.Plant1]

The type of golf club he was using reflects the distance it went, it is actually realistic

[@saxpert]

You are right, I didn't notice the last seconds. From an NLP point of view it's interesting that you always look up left after noticing a mistake.

[@davidkharat1]

Great review, thanks

[@JoseOrtega-XOR75]

I always give my checklists nicknames, from the Morning Prayer to the Menu... So maybe just a nickname...

[@miklosernoehazy8678]

... that's what I was thinking...

[@krissfemmpaws1029]

We always called it the cheat sheet

[@vpitool]

Watch and comment on the 1965 version, its about 1000% better that this bomb.. Great Channel !

[@x4dragon215]

Just a small thought when you talked about the rudder snapping off 14:20, I remembered there was a part where the movie showed a control wire broke off at 12:10. if he stepped on that rudder paddle that hard as he did in the movie, maybe that's what caused the rudder to break due to it just swinging around at the back like a seesaw effect. I would really like to know what you think about it. Love your videos, keep up the great work!