The four-engined V-44 derivative of the V-22 gets a role in the latest "Transformers" movie. Doesn't get a whole lot of screen time, but it's there.
Firefly 2 said:So, does it transform into an autobot or a decepticon?
Yeah, you can already see some captions in the trailers. Just search for "Transformers 3 - Wingsuit BASE Jumping" at Youtube.OBB said:"Flaming wreckage"
Orionblamblam said:Firefly 2 said:So, does it transform into an autobot or a decepticon?
"Flaming wreckage," actually. They spared no expense in blowin' stuff up in "Dark of the Moon." In the movie, there are secrets, political corruption, wasted years and wasted taxpayer money, fear and death and destruction in Chicago and the economy of Illinois gets pretty well destroyed. So, pretty much Blago but with giant alien robots.
fightingirish said:OBB, how was the movie? It seems to better than Transformers 2.
Orionblamblam said:The ending of the movie makes a "Transformers 4" a bit doubtful. Death abounds in this one... probably hundreds of thousands of humans die, but more importantly, just about all the Decepticons are dead by the end (and most of the Autobots).
Demon Lord Razgriz said:As for the model chick, was it just me, or did her role seemed forced? It felt like it was written for Megan Fox's character, and wasn't edited much for the new girl.
sublight said:This movie was a complete piece of garbage. Shame on Buzz Aldrin for appearing in it. With all of the "fake moon landing" crap thrown about for years, why would Buzz do anything to muddy the waters?
Stargazer2006 said:If a real-life V-44 costs twice what the V-22 did, and if it takes twice as long to get operational, we're not just about to see one other than at the movies, anyway... :
sublight said:I'm confused by your stance.
sublight said:I'm confused by your stance. You complain that the first transformers movie proposes most technology (microwaves, etc...) were gleaned from alien technology and not by good old fashioned engineering. Now you are totally OK with going to the moon for Alien technology and not for good old fashioned exploration. Yes, the public is stupid and I think they shouldn't be fed this kind of junk. It totally cheapens the Apollo program to the level of circus show and not the historical significance it deserves.
SOC said:As for the V-44, when it gets blown up, was it wrong that my first thought was "yeah, that seems about right"
sublight said:It totally cheapens the Apollo program to the level of circus show and not the historical significance it deserves.
Orionblamblam said:Screw that noise, give all the troops *manly* weapons.
blackstar said:Stargazer2006 said:If a real-life V-44 costs twice what the V-22 did, and if it takes twice as long to get operational, we're not just about to see one other than at the movies, anyway... :
There was an article in Defense News a couple of weeks ago discussing this. The gist of the article was that the V-22 is likely to be the last tilt-rotor we will see for a long time. The BA609 has found no customers, and the article indicated that the V-44 is not working out in the simulators. It's apparently too heavy to get off the ground. The V-22 is also underperforming on range because the cabin is unpressurized and they cannot get the range they advertised because they cannot go to the proper cruising altitude unless they put the entire crew on supplemental oxygen, which the payload cabin is not equipped for.