Press/media screw ups or inaccuracies

[Webmaster]

A place to vent your frustration, disbelief, anger or whatever you feel when you notice the general or aviation press in any media make a major screw up or just a minor mistake when military aviation or other equipment is concerned.

I'll start with a recent minor one:

On TV a news program here in the Netherlands, either the NOS or RTL (can't remember, maybe both) reported on the sad Congolese An-26 crash. The editor sourced a picture of this "Antonov plane" to go with the report, unfortunately it showed the An-32, probably not even of the airline involved.

By the way, whenever there's a report on the Dutch F-16s, the paper 'Trouw' always seems to select a photo of a Belgian F-16. 

[alyster]

As I said earlier
http://www.postimees.ee/100905/esileht/valisuudised/176583_foto.php#33

F-16 hävituslennukid -> F-16 fighterplanes

I was mistaking myself before because my memory failed me, these 2 Falcons weren't escorted by Eagles and Hornets, but Gripens and with the third one I'm bit confuesed  :-[ 

Ühe hävitaja maksumus on umbes 45 miljonit dollarit ja sellega asendatakse USA õhuvägede vananenud lennukid F-16 и F/A-18.

I've highlighted a slavic letter -i- there, In Russian it means and. Rest is in Estonian, about F-35 replacing Falcons и Hornets.

[Webmaster]

The third type are Tornados. I think they are German IDS or ECR variants, because the British GR.4s nowadays carry the bigger 2250l gallon drop tanks, and the pod carried on the bort wing looks more like a Cerberus Tornado self protection jammer than a Sky Shadow pod. The Italians most often carry double BOZ chaff/flare dispensers.

[Webmaster]

Dutch newspaper Trouw:

On 2 Nov 2007, posted a shot article on Paul W. Tibbets as he had died. According to the article, he was commander of the B-52 that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1942.

Two big mistakes in one tiny article. The next day, they posted the correction. (B-29, and of course 1945). I mean confusing B-29 with B-52 is maybe somehow understandable. But 1942! Either big typo, or big dummy who wrote it.

[alyster]

From a book "Sõjalennukid" (trns: "War planes").


It's a frigging japanese F-2. The author has the very same picture for the F-2 aswell. He has a same pic for Su-34 35 and 37 aswell. I think they are all 34s.

[Webmaster]

No, it's a RNLAF F-16A Block 10 of 323 Sqn:
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item94999.html

Later was fitted with brake parachute container, and it went to 315/313 squadrons at Twenthe AB, before being retired in 1999.
313sqn http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item24818.html
315sqn http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item24186.html

So the F-2 picture is wrong, if it's the same. And the Sukhois..., pls show us. 

[alyster]

F-16? Damn I though it had a rising sun on its rear 
Anyway here are the SUs. I think it's a 34 since it has such a long spicke up its a** 




I need to work on my scanning skills

[Webmaster]

It's the old Su-35 (Su-27M). http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35/su-35.htm
I'm sorry my friend, but the Su-34 is quite different: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-34/su-34.htm
The single Su-37 built, had white fin tips and different camo... and it would probably have been drawn with the TVC nozzles in down position.
The new Su-35 would have the smaller Su-27/Su-33 like fins, and have wingtip pods. I think this book is considerably older than it.

I'm not recognizing the big missiles on there, looks more like the Kh-15 to me, than any of the missiles in the Flanker inventory.

Compared to this F-16A, the Japanese F-2 has a seperate windshield, instead of the one-piece of the F-16 (so entire canopy is three pieces not two). It has the C/D-type aerials on the nose in front of the cockpit. It has the brake-chute container, with a RWR sensor on top of it. It has bigger tail planes as latter model F-16s. It lacks the additional aerial on the intake, but has another aerial at the root of the tailfin. Different wing, although that wouldn't be visible in this view. The Japanese roundel is carried somewhere between the cockpit and wingroot, the code is applied under the cockpit, not on the tail, and none of the Japanese F-2s carry this standard GD/USAF paint scheme.


I'd say throw that book into the paper bin. 

[alyster]

LOL, 0 out of 2. I'm as useless as the book

[Raptor]

How do you tell, Webby? I can barely see the images. Btw, what happened to the Su-37?

Well, unfortunately for you guys, Singapore is full of techie geeks like me. So you won't find a lot of inaccuracies. Even the Halo 3 report was good...

[Cobra2]

The way I tell that thats not a Su-34 is the canopy, the Su-34's canopy is covered in the back, and its fins like webby said are different.

And the 37? That things dead...lol
I believe they crashed all the prototypes?

[Raptor]

Eh the 37... Was a candidate for Singapore's new fighter. -.= nearly clinched it too, if not for the safety thing.