This movie was made in 1955. There's no annoying CGI, I think we can cut them some slack. That said, the B36 is one of my all time favorite aircraft.

Despite many inaccuracies it remains one of my favourite films with beautiful colors ❤

If Brigadier General James Stewart, USAF Reserve, didn't have a problem with it, I don't. Sorry.

Have flown many many hours in the 36 and watched the movie many times. Really didn't care about the very minor inaccuracies as it brought back really good memories.

Wow, picking apart one of my favorite movies of all time! Thanks

Yeah, the inside of the aircraft in these scenes is actually a multi-piece set that can slide apart to allow access to equipment and crew, or back together to look whole as the shot dictates. They have to make a lot of compromises to allow room for bulky cameras to move in and out, actors to be able to move through the sets, what looks good (or not) on camera, budget, lighting, sound, and what they're allowed to show. This is especially true when the aircraft is still active and contains sensitive equipment that the AF doesn't want shown, as was the case with the B-36 when this movie was made. The B-47 cockpit set from later in this movie is on display at the March Field Museum near Riverside, CA. Visitors can see how, like the B-36 set, it was built in sections to open up for cameras or to slide back together as needed to look reasonably realistic and whole. It looks pretty good in person but appears much more realistic in the film due to their careful use of camera angles, field of view, green screen, etc. Soundstage sets that open up for cameras and slide back together to look whole, such as houses, vehicles, whatever, are a common part of Hollywood "magic". They're typically pretty disappointing if you see them in person. I was USAF on heavies including B-52s, and most movies that show the simulated interior of any aircraft, especially active war birds like B-52s, are very inaccurate, but the vast majority of the audience doesn't know the difference. On the other hand, some are surprisingly realistic, such as the interior of the B-52 in Dr. Strangelove. It's not 100% accurate, nor did it need to be, but it's far closer than most movies bother to make it.

It is a movie, it is made for entertainment, not historical accuracy.

I don't think I love anything so much as war movie pedantry. This is some top notch stuff. Chef's kiss!

Is that a young Harry Morgan in this movie? Nobody else talks like him. RIP Harry.

Thank you so very much for pointing this out to me. I will be able to go to my grave knowing that the airplane in the movie was a prop. Like that really bothered me in the first place.

Jimmy Stewart having also been an Air Force bomber pilot would’ve been fully aware of these inaccuracies. But wasn’t likely concerned about it as this is just a movie. Hollywood is not usually concerned about inaccuracies. I’ll cite Top Gun for example. The 1986 movie was full of inaccuracies. But it didn’t exactly take away from the story.

This is one of my favorite Air Force Movies, it really peaked my interest in both the B-36 and the B-47 growing up as a teenager and well into my adulthood years as well, and part of the Movie is filmed at MacDill AFB where my Father served in the 1960’s and I had the pleasure of serving there as well during my time in the Air Force, It had some excellent footage of aircraft in flight and to be honest the minor technical differences don’t take anything away from this Movie and having real life Air Force Pilot Col Jimmy Stewart in it made it even so much more enjoyable. And getting to see the C124 Globemaster cargo plane being loaded was a great bonus.

it was awesome to see that before Col Potter commanded a MASH unit he served aboard a B-36. Both Jimmy Stewart and Harry Morgan were always and still are two of my favorite actors. RIP to both great men.

The most important feature of this movie to me was the exterior and airborne shots of the plane. No freaking low resolution stock footage, real movie cameras used for taking beautiful scenes of the big bomber. A special shoutout to Paul Mantz! Yeah, the inaccuracies of the interior shots can be annoying to people who know what's supposed to be there. Whenever I see a movie with an airplane or a submarine in it I realize that there just isn't enough room in there for Hollywood cameras and lights.

You must be a blast to watch movies with! What movie have you ever watched, that was perfect in every detail? Try to enjoy the movie for what it is......A GREAT MOVIE!

What bothers me most is that, in a 114 minute movie, they didn't accurately use 5 to 10 minutes for the use of the crew tunnel.

Since I didn't know jack about the B36 to begin with, my enjoyment of the movie wasn't hindered, at all. It wasn'tamovie about theB26....it was about Colonel Holland and his wife.

Thanks for the details. For those watching a movie not so important & certainly not as bad as some more resent CGI efforts. For those wishing to build a model or just interested in the tech this stuff IS very helpful!

I wonder how much was "We need to do this to make it easier to film" and how much was "Let's not get too accurate, just in case".

Good observations - I never noticed that open cockpit window in flight. Most is just the usual rearranging of set positions and time done on movie shoots to make the scene work - they call it “cheating”. There’s also the special paint job they did for the movie - the inset “No Smoking” on the nosewheel door, the AF star on the nosewheel seen in some shots, the extra stripe detail on the jet pods including an “eye” at bottom. Red stripes are of course correct - 26th Bomb Squadron, 11th Bomb Wing. Head first down the tube worked better for the scene, but they usually went feet first due to the nose -high flight angle of the plane. The tube does take a long time - a while back I went through the one at the AF Museum. Not seen here but check out the crewman in the rear blister during the takeoff roll - he appears to be giving the camera the finger.

The set of this plane is on display at March Air Force base. Only the cockpit.

My father was a WW2 pilot in the RCAF and the USAAF. Before that he had done a hitch in the very, very small USMC as an aircraft mechanic prior to the war. The last war movie he saw was the 1990 Pearl Harbor movie. He chuckled all the way thru it while he explained all the errors in it to my older brother who was a USNR Captain. Everyone can see the tumbling tumbleweeds of California in 1965's Battle of the Bulge. Back before the internet there were at least 2 books published about errors in war movies. One, movies have a budget to try to hit. Two, in all movies, there is a time compression. In reality the Jimmy Stewart character would have gone thru refresher basic flight training, then ground school on the B-36 or any other aircraft he would have flown. Only then would they have put him into the flying course for the B-36, in order for him to fly co-pilot to re-start his USAF flying career. Jimmy Stewart's character was a little too old to be playing in the MLB or to have a much younger wife such as June Allyson. My dad knew pilots who had not been wounded and were civilian pilots who were very happy to get an additional 15-20 years flying time in tankers and cargo aircraft that were not jets. As a kid, I got to see the inside of a number of such aircraft flown by friends of his who were on permanent flying status just like they were regular USAF, but they were actually Reserve or Air Guard pilots. The other thing he pointed out was that there were sometimes technical errors even in the training films during WW2.

Im just greatful that this movie was made. To see the magnesium overcast and the B47 operational in a picture to that extent is awsome. Many great aircraft legends didn't get that attention and theres little to show of what they were like when operational. I hope you continue to point out inaccuracies in more videos, it doesn't distract from my love for this movie at all. Consider this, hollyweird will never "get it right" with its engineerd methods and techniques for making movies for its perceived target audiences. Masters of the air has so many errors because of the deliberate compromises directors make to keep the attention of people who otherwise have little interest in the subject. It uses a "star wars" like level of action to keep its audience entertained. Ive worked in the aircraft restoration buisness on B17s so its tough to watch. Movies have to compete with their phones for attention. I guess at least the story is being told. Production costs are also enormous and budgets going over can get a film canceled if the suits get nervous. Technical advisors often find out how costly sets are to build because of who builds them. Motion picture industry is a union gig. And most important, in this movie a real combat veteran was the star. Genral Stewart was a respected leader of men in the air war over Europe. I can imagine he drew from his own experience in portraying that character. Carry on, i hope you continue.

I wish that there was an airworthy B-36 that could perform at airshows. ☹️

Strategic Air Command is one of my favorite movies. 99.99% of the people who have seen this movie don't know anything about the planes nor the innacurracies which are shown. It's a movie. They don't care. Just enjoy the movie.

This film here is trying to get the viewer to feel a certain way. Check the sappy music. The details you mention are important if this was a training film. Most of the viewers would not be crew members On a B 36. The producers would not have put in interactions with Dutch's pretty young wife or other characters like the baseball team. I think it's a great movie and your points are well taken. I used to discuss these types of things with others about other movies. We still have items of other movies to compare them to. Maybe we should have saved a few more 36s since it was such an important part of our history.

This is classic movie making at its best. The inaccuracies that you point out, no one is going to notice or understand unless they are a total airplane geek like yourself. It is interesting. But it doesn’t make any difference in the movie.

Great observations , didn't know the real tunnel had a warp , if you think of it ,there was no way they could film with vistavision cameras of the day inside a real B36 , let alone do lighting.

For movies they have to make it so the people who watch it can see things. Did you ever serve in the USAF on aircraft? Many things are changed so people can see things during movies

Love Cold War films. Especially ones that shows how successful SAC was every day for decades by deterring a Soviet attack. Peace was really their profession unlike the joke in the Dr. Strangelove movie.

My late Father Army air Corps/ Airforce flew B-36s . As an flight engineer he said he was in Hog Heaven.

This movie was made at the peak of the Cold War. I am sure the Air Force did all it could to help with the movie, maybe the inaccuracies are things the Air Force would not let them film, like the actual interior of a B-36H.

well, the way you dissected the pseudo Hollywood technical deficiencies of the B-36, I'm sure that Brig Gen Stewart would be appropriately rolling in his grave!....

The B-36, "The Big Stick". I was a SAC Troop a long time ago....I never got to see a B-36 fly, but a lot of my NCOs did...

One has to point this stuff out. I noticed that in Back to the Future the war memorial in the 1955 town was flanked by two 1930’s French 25 mm anti tank guns. Which is weird.

Great presentation…Your knowledge of this particular aircraft is vast and you’ve pointed out some very interesting points about the apparatus and their functions…I was particularly impressed to learn about the length of the plane and how the crew had to use a tunnel and sled and cable to move around inside….knowing exactly which seats should be used by the pilot and co-pilot shows how much research you’ve done on this aircraft……(I’ve seen this film and the cinematography was great) I was always amazed how they used rockets to get this giant airplane off the runway… thanks for sharing …more please

I was around 8 years old when the movie came out and I recall hearing one of the crew members saying that after the plane had landed, that "This thing is faster on the ground than it is in the air". The next time that I saw it it seems that the remark was deleted. The B-36 needed the four turbojets in order to break 400 mph.

Brother, it's a movie, not a training video. It's purpose was to sell tickets, and entertain. I find it interesting that you have invested what is obviously hours to nitpick an entertainment program to this level.

It shows all the engines working normally that's the biggest error. Or as it was joking referred: "Two Turning, Two Burning, Two Smoking, Two Choking, and Two more unaccounted for..."

Not boring at all. Us SAC brats never saw the inside of any aircraft except those MAC planes which flew us to duty stations. We were at Barksdale A.F.B. when this movie was released. There were KB-50's, KC-97's, B-47's then the B-52's on the flight line back then. We left in 1958 I believe after four years.

Inaccuracies... Food keeping closets are better known as cabinets or refrigerators.

No doubt the movie which was made in 1955 had cinematographic inconsistency, however i doubt that 99% of moviegoers had seen a real B36, much less the inside of one to notice the difference. Even after all these years, i wouldn't know a studio mock up vs a real one. btw, got to see one of these iconic aircraft on display at the Castle air museum in Atwater California. A lot bigger than this movie shows.

Also, there is an incorrect number of rivets on the left bulkhead that is visible for the entire 0.5 seconds of the movie...

Cool insights 😎 .. Not enough stuff about the PeaceMaker !

You really know your B-36's well !

I Love your passion for the B-36. I count myself lucky that I've seen the one in Dayton a couple of times. Truly awe inspiring machines. I totally get what you are doing and it's for historical accuracy, so definitely ignore the naysayers. They've obviously never seen the judging at a high end classic car concourse. The Easter egg I found is between 1:52 to 3:20ish there seems to be a leg of a Safeway scaffold painted green. I worked construction for many years and am very familiar with them. Keep up the good work and I wish there were more surviving examples of this awesome aircraft.

All in all, I think it was a pretty good movie. Of course, I understand your intent in pointing out the inaccuracies of the interior scenes. And I understand in making a movie, the interior scenes would have probably been impossible without cutting up the aircraft. I think they did a pretty good job with that film. Other movies that I think were pretty good: “Bridges at Toko-Ri” (F9F Panthers, AD Skyraiders and the Sikorsky HO3S-1 helicopter). In what other movie can you see jets launching from a straight-deck Oriskany with hydraulic catapults. Oriskany later got an angled flight deck and two steam catapults and operated at Yankee Station. “They Were Expendable” (PT boats) “Battle Hymn” (P-51’s) “Air Force” (although there were a lot of inaccuracies, it was still a good story and crew chief Robbie (Harry Carey) loved his airplane. It was made in 1943. B-17C’s, I think they were.) They can’t make movies like these anymore. They have to have the action of a Star Wars movie or they won’t sell.

Im not sure why you're rivet counting this movie. It wasn't a documentary or a Meet Your Peacemaker. It was a propaganda movie staring aging actors. And I love this movie, nothing you pointed out takes away from the fun factor of the film.

My real beef was with Top Gun Mavrick and not using an authentic gun sound. We love BURRRRRRR!

This is the only really good technicolor aviation porno of the 36!

The word is continuity, not continuation. Please understand the correct words and meaning of what you are trying to say.. Thanks and Cheers

Poindexter, not everyone who loves to watch military movies is a geek. I'd say most people who know all this information about the B-36 would just think about the inaccuracies and not arrogantly point them out like it made a bit of difference in how enjoyable the movie is.

My Dad was a Marine in Korea and learned a very sarcastic song about the B-36 The song was about test flights to practice dropping atomic bombs on North Korea. "But it only drops a tinsy winsy bomb". Mac Arthur got his walking papers over this episode.

It’s called, “that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith.” (Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1817)

Expecting accuracy in this movie, is about like going to your local airport to look for a Reindeer. And yes, there have been people who thought that aircraft was real.

I am old and was in love with the B-36 when I was a kid. This movie is a wonderful archive of what a B-36 looked like flying, taking off, etc. It was filmed in the best that Hollywood had at the time; otherwise we would be left with crummy air force films. Does anyone know what the availability of the B-36 was? During it's service life what percentage could get off the ground in an emergency? I've heard rumours it was a very troublesome plane.

It’s a movie !!!!

I'm fairly sure that the cockpit scenes were shot in a studio.

Speaking of the pilot seats, they seem boosted comically high in relation to the control yokes. Their legs barely fit underneath. There’s no freedom of movement.

You must be a lot of fun at parties

The enlisted over sized ranks on the ball caps seems ridiculous.

That was some crazy aircraft.

I forgot Col Potter had a twin brother.😉😉😂

That was a great movie. You sure do know about your B36 details!!

It was a movie.

I guess they decided to make and film a movie with big old Technicolor cameras for a general civilian audience. What a shame, when they could have used a handheld 8MM movie camera and documented the entire insides of a B-36H.

I only see some very small technical flaws, IF any. It does not compromise the story at all.

I think you meant "continuity error"

I can’t figure out if I should laugh or cry. Then I remember that this is just a biological experiment on a lonely water planet.

Never liked the B-36 but kind of have to admire that the 1950s USA would strap 10 engines on something just to deliver democracy.

Seems like the crew are senior citizens

How about the disappearing nose guns? The come and go in the different shots!

Thanks for the for the technical review. Great info.

Carswell AFB, Fort Worth, Texas

Why not point out that the enlisted aircrew are telling the straight truth to a staff Colonel? Not part of the SAC that I know.

Lets not forget the XC-99 cargo variant. Saw it as a child on static display at Kelly AFB. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XC-99

So you think they should have taken up 20min of the film going back and forth in the tunnel? It was done this way so people would understand how the aircraft worked in general. Let's go back and find out who the script supervisor was on this film, and kick his or her ass!

It's a movie though 🤔

It's a movie. 99% of the people who enjoyed it could care less about your hobby of picking the fly shit out of the pepper. Relax, have a beer. Geez.

Maybe they had them do those things, too fool the Soviets

Rivet counter.

I have yet to see a Hollywood film that's about historical events being 100% historically accurate. Even great films like Apollo 13 have misquotes (Jim Lovell did not exactly say "Houston we HAVE a problem" 🙂). Many things go into making a film, unfortunately a lot of times some historical facts are sacrificed because of budget restrictions, dramatic effect, or just too difficult to recreate. Although these films are entertaining and to a degree informative they are not documentaries and should not be used as accurate historical accounts.

Thought that was a B29 cockpit and engineers position .. :)

Dude, I gotta say that you are nit-picking at stuff that virtually 100 people in the world might care about! Wow!

Don't care about all the nit-picking because it was a great movie.

Why are you picking this great movie apart? It's a GREAT Classic movie and it's for entertainment...Leave it alone!

Well good info for the next time I find myself inside a B36.....but otherwise..who cares? It's a great movie..a classic in fact.....why get wrapped around the axle about inconsistencies that virtually no one knows or cares about. .just enjoy it as it was intended..great entertainment......this is like listening to Sheldon explain the intricacies of various trains....it gets tedious very quickly...

It's Hollywood 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

When did B36 get jet engines for take off and over target

Obsolete before it was introduced

Seriously dude?

It's a movie...

Well damn, now I can't watch this film.

Dude, they have to compress time for movies, no one wants to watch a cart return for ten minutes in a theater.

Who gives a rats a$$ about the inacuracies , it's a great movie. Do you think the viewers are sayin "oh my God, this is so inaccurate." You need to get a life if all these things bother you. It's a movie dude, a freaking movie. ❤

It's cinema, not a documentary 😂😂😂 They are telling a story.

just got to love critical complainers.

Wow. The most knowledgeable B36 fan on KZfaq has absolutely ruined the one and only B36 movie for all the other B36 fans on KZfaq. Talk about hating what you should love.

You need a girlfriend.

You really need to find something to do with your life. Sitting here nitpicking a movie for historical “errors” is just pathetic.