Flyboys Movie: the aircraft

[John Ousterhout[_2_]]

Robert Baslee's company - Airdrome Aeroplanes - makes kits (very good
ones IMO) for various WWI aircraft, including Nieuports and Fokkers.
http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/

Robert was contracted by the movie company to built two - later changed
to four - full-scale Nieuport 17 replicas. Robert and his helpers
completed and flew the aircraft in only 52 days. After test flights they
were shipped to England for filming. The special effects folks "aged"
them to add authenticity. These aircraft used VW engines with a
propeller reduction. A casting of rotary engine cylinders was used to
cover the cowl opening when the aircraft were on the ground. Note: when
the engines were running you did not see the cylinders rotating. Robert
has the four Nieuports again and plans to auction them all together.

August 2005 KITPLANES magazine had a story about Robert building four
aircraft in 52 days.

A bunch of other aircraft were also used in the movie.
http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*73233571!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/may6-2005/Mn-71-flyboys-the-mo.html

- John Ousterhout -

[Dave Stadt]

"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
message news:hHGRg.160371$FQ1.68993@attbi_s71...
> Robert Baslee's company - Airdrome Aeroplanes - makes kits (very good ones
> IMO) for various WWI aircraft, including Nieuports and Fokkers.
> http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/
>
> Robert was contracted by the movie company to built two - later changed to
> four - full-scale Nieuport 17 replicas. Robert and his helpers completed
> and flew the aircraft in only 52 days. After test flights they were
> shipped to England for filming. The special effects folks "aged" them to
> add authenticity. These aircraft used VW engines with a propeller
> reduction. A casting of rotary engine cylinders was used to cover the cowl
> opening when the aircraft were on the ground.

They were radials not rotarys.

Note: when
> the engines were running you did not see the cylinders rotating. Robert
> has the four Nieuports again and plans to auction them all together.
>
> August 2005 KITPLANES magazine had a story about Robert building four
> aircraft in 52 days.
>
> A bunch of other aircraft were also used in the movie.
> http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*73233571!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/may6-2005/Mn-71-flyboys-the-mo.html
>
> - John Ousterhout -

[kontiki]

Did anybody notice the N numbers on the tails? Overall I thought
it was a great movie... the lack of rotaries not withstanding.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:48:03 GMT, kontiki > wrote:

> Did anybody notice the N numbers on the tails? Overall I thought
> it was a great movie... the lack of rotaries not withstanding.

French standard markings included an abbreviation of the aircraft type, followed
by a serial number, on the rudder. Providentially, the French used "N" as an
abbreviation for "Nieuport." For example:

http://www.ipmsfinland.org/galleria/jasenet/juvonenjari/kuvat/Nieuport+17c1%5B%5D148%5B%5D01.jpg

This is usually taken advantage of, when Nieuport replicas are made in the US.

Personally, I was quite disappointed in the movie. The CGI scenes were
too-obviously computer generated (everything's always perfectly lit, no deep
shadows, etc.), and the movement of the control surfaces sometimes didn't match
what the planes were doing. Thirty years ago, "Star Wars" became the hallmark
of special effects when they based their dogfights on the motion of actual
aircraft (even though spacecraft wouldn't move that way) because it made them
appear more real; it's a pity the special effects guys on this film didn't.

Grab your DVD and watch "The Blue Max." Or "Wings", for that matter.

Anyone else notice that nobody received any dual instruction? The first scene
you see the main characters in an airplane, they're flying it for the first
time. Yet there was what appeared to be a "Penguin" sitting on the field when
they first arrived. The movie's tag-line is about learning to *fly*...yet we
see scenes of them learning to shoot, instead.

Speaking of shooting, note that, when bullets hit airplanes in the film, they
apparently shattered on impact with the fabric. At the end of the film, the
main character's airplane has a dozen or more bullet holes in the fuselage
forward of his torso. You can't PUT a machine gun bullet in that area from
behind and NOT hit something vital...pilot's legs, fuel tank, engine, etc. Yet
the plane sails along, with just a bullet hole in the pilot's shoulder.

Speaking of holes in people's shoulders, did anyone else notice how fast people
healed in this movie? When the hospital was evacuated, one of the main
characters shows absolutely no hindrance from what had been a life-threatening
bullet wound in the shoulder. No sling, no bandage, and they move their arms
normally, even hugging another character without pain. Yes, *maybe* several
months had gone by...but if character had been so completely healed up, why were
they still in the hospital, anyway? In *wartime*, no less.

Like too many movies today, the film overlays current-day sensibilities on
historical events. During WWI, "combat fatigue" and "post-traumatic stress
syndrome" were unknown...if a solider refused to fight, they just stuck him up
against the wall and shot him. The subplot about the black pilot was handled
well, but I think it was toned down vs. the reaction he would actually have
received.

I think the movie handled the personal horrors of war in the air pretty well.
Some of the photography was great, too. I did enjoy the ground scenes at the
airfield.

Ron Wanttaja

[ktbr]

Yes, I noted all your nitpicks also, but since practically
all movies today contain these same elements of inaccuracy
(idiocy?) I try to overlook them in the spirit of enjoying
the movie. It is hard not to be critical especially of the
historical ones though.

I'll even add one more nit... taking off in the dead of night
to go land in a field (dead stick even!) not once but twice
to rescue the girl and the children. I just don't see any
pilot of that era trying that with those aircraft in those
conditions.

[Dave[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...

>
> I think the movie handled the personal horrors of war in the air pretty
> well.
> Some of the photography was great, too. I did enjoy the ground scenes at
> the
> airfield.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Sounds like a pretty bad review Ron. I'm making the wife go and see it this
evening. I'm sure I'll enjoy it a lot more than some of the sappy bits of
treacle she's dragged me to over the years. I've never had any problem
suspending my "reality" filter for movies, I expect that reality makes for
pretty poor cinema.

[Charlie[_1_]]

Dave wrote:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I think the movie handled the personal horrors of war in the air pretty
>>well.
>>Some of the photography was great, too. I did enjoy the ground scenes at
>>the
>>airfield.
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
>
> Sounds like a pretty bad review Ron. I'm making the wife go and see it this
> evening. I'm sure I'll enjoy it a lot more than some of the sappy bits of
> treacle she's dragged me to over the years. I've never had any problem
> suspending my "reality" filter for movies, I expect that reality makes for
> pretty poor cinema.
>
>
Tell your wife to save her (or your) money. A bunch of local pilots &
spouses went opening night.

After suffering through the movie, during the credits my wife leaned
over & said, "I think y'all took us to a chick-flick with some flying
thrown in."

Charlie

[Dave Stadt]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:12:41 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
>>message news:hHGRg.160371$FQ1.68993@attbi_s71...
>>> Robert Baslee's company - Airdrome Aeroplanes - makes kits (very good
>>> ones
>>> IMO) for various WWI aircraft, including Nieuports and Fokkers.
>>> http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/
>>>
>>> Robert was contracted by the movie company to built two - later changed
>>> to
>>> four - full-scale Nieuport 17 replicas. Robert and his helpers
>>> completed
>>> and flew the aircraft in only 52 days. After test flights they were
>>> shipped to England for filming. The special effects folks "aged" them to
>>> add authenticity. These aircraft used VW engines with a propeller
>>> reduction. A casting of rotary engine cylinders was used to cover the
>>> cowl
>>> opening when the aircraft were on the ground.
>>
>>They were radials not rotarys.
>
> No, they were rotaries.
>
> The Nieuport 17 used the 110 hp LeRhone type J rotary. The prop was
> fixed to the case, the crank was attached to the airframe. The entire
> engine spun.
>
> http://www.pwam.org/gnomeng.htm

I fully understand that the 'real' Nieuport 17 was powered by a rotary but
in the movie they were radials not rotaries. You would think that for the
ground shots they would have dummied up a rotary so at least the engine
looked like it was turning. They didn't. To me this was a major flaw
especially for a director who claims to have gone to extremes to assure
accuracy.

[Jay Honeck]

> Tell your wife to save her (or your) money. A bunch of local pilots &
> spouses went opening night.
>
> After suffering through the movie, during the credits my wife leaned
> over & said, "I think y'all took us to a chick-flick with some flying
> thrown in."

Hm. A bunch of local pilots and spouses from here went, too. Although
some of the pilots picked a nit or two, overall the reception was
positive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:06:06 GMT, "Dave" > wrote:

>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > I think the movie handled the personal horrors of war in the air pretty
> > well. Some of the photography was great, too. I did enjoy the ground scenes at
> > the airfield.
>
> Sounds like a pretty bad review Ron. I'm making the wife go and see it this
> evening. I'm sure I'll enjoy it a lot more than some of the sappy bits of
> treacle she's dragged me to over the years. I've never had any problem
> suspending my "reality" filter for movies, I expect that reality makes for
> pretty poor cinema.

I'll forgive the nits if a film avoids obvious cliches, but this one swerved to
bump through each one, just like a student driver on a potholed road.

Some of the obvious nits could have been avoided if they'd just had pilot
involved. In the "old days" when they had to use real airplanes to film movies
like this, there were people around who could tell the director that an airplane
just couldn't *do* the stunt he wanted. But when it's CGI..."Heck, let's have
him knock off the German's top wing by backing into it with his landing gear.
Make sure the gear isn't damaged, so he can land safely afterwards."

Sheesh.

I fully agree that some compromises usually have to be made for making a movie
for mass consumption. I'm not complaining (much :-) that the movie showed more
Fokker Triplanes that were ever *made* (oh, an exaggeration, but the type never
was common). I'm not complaining that the Triplanes didn't reach the front
until a YEAR after the film was set. The Fokker Triplane is a very identifiable
aircraft; using them for the German airplanes let the non-pilot moviegoer
instantly recognize which were the good guys and the bad guys.

However, I *will* complain about having all the Fokker Triplanes painted red.
That was an artistic decision completely divorced from historical reality. One
Triplane was painted all red. One very famous one. Not every single one of
them.

Historical accuracy in popular movies isn't a paradox. Take "Master and
Commander: The Far Side of the World." The film was very accurate...and a
cracking good yarn, too. If it hadn't been for those damn Hobbits, it would
have taken the best picture Oscar....

Well, we'll just have to see if the Germans get WWI aviation right....

http://www.redbaronmovie.com/

....though I admit some aspects of the synopsis are pre-engaging my
gag reflex. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:06:53 GMT, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> > The Nieuport 17 used the 110 hp LeRhone type J rotary. The prop was
> > fixed to the case, the crank was attached to the airframe. The entire
> > engine spun.
> >
> > http://www.pwam.org/gnomeng.htm
>
> I fully understand that the 'real' Nieuport 17 was powered by a rotary but
> in the movie they were radials not rotaries. You would think that for the
> ground shots they would have dummied up a rotary so at least the engine
> looked like it was turning. They didn't. To me this was a major flaw
> especially for a director who claims to have gone to extremes to assure
> accuracy.

They apparently mostly used the flyable replicas for the ground shots. These
were powered by VW engines, so they had a dummy "plate" attached on the inside
of the cowling to look more closely like the "real" engines. It did look like a
typical radial, but I suspect they were going for the rotary look. To the
knowledgable eye, of course, they didn't look right. Due to the scarcity of
rotaries, I didn't hold it against them...sure didn't expect them to partially
disassemble a flyable aircraft just to install a fake rotary for a few seconds
of ground shot.

They *did* have an actual rotary on a stand, in one of the ground-maintenance
sequences.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:51:17 -0700, Richard Riley >
wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:50:25 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> > wrote:
>
> >Some of the obvious nits could have been avoided if they'd just had pilot
> >involved.
>
> Strange. The director is Tony Bill. He's a pilot, he's been flying
> for 50 years. He has a Marchetti SF 260 at SMO. Phil Sears, one of
> the writers, flies out of SNA.

That *is* strange. Still, William Wellman's movie about the Lafayette
Escadrille wasn't very good, either, and he had been IN the Escadrille... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
> Historical accuracy in popular movies isn't a paradox. Take "Master and
> Commander: The Far Side of the World." The film was very accurate...and
> a cracking good yarn, too. If it hadn't been for those damn Hobbits, it
> would have taken the best picture Oscar....
>
> Well, we'll just have to see if the Germans get WWI aviation right....
>
> http://www.redbaronmovie.com/


My college Latin professor also taught a Roman History course, during
(January) Interim. We spent three whole days going over the movie "A Funny
Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" (1966).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060438/

He said it was one of the most authentic Roman Period movies ever made, from
a set design standpoint - it was even more accurate, on a number of fronts,
than Ben-Hur (1959)

....and funnier.


Montblack :-)

Marcus Vindictus: Don't you know your right flank from your left flank?
Captain Mucus: I'm sorry sir, I flunked flank.
Marcus Vindictus: You flunked flank? Get the flunk out of here!

Mel Brooks - History of the World: Part I (1981)

[Scott[_1_]]

Yes, I saw N numbers ;)

Scott


kontiki wrote:
> Did anybody notice the N numbers on the tails? Overall I thought
> it was a great movie... the lack of rotaries not withstanding.
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

<SPOILERS AHEAD>






On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:34:37 -0700, Richard Riley >
wrote:

> They're trying to make a good movie, not an accurate one. And "good"
> means "Will sell many tickets to 18-24 year olds." I can't blame
> them, if I'd spent $80 million making a movie, I'd want to sell
> tickets, too. The ticket buying public doesn't care how accurate the
> flying sequences are. They care about who gets the girl, will our
> hero find his destiny, and how many things blow up.

A very good point, Richard, but it's my belief that "Will sell many tickets to
18-24 year olds" and "Accurate" aren't mutually exclusive. As I've previously
posted, I agree things have to be simplified and sometimes even made inaccurate
to help the non-flying public understand. But that's not an excuse to throw
realism out the window.

I mean, shoot, when Rawlins meets the girl at the hospital, would it have killed
the film to have her arm in a sling? Rawlin's nighttime flights to save the
girl and her family (by flying TWICE to an unlit field in the middle of a
hundred unlit fields...) *might* have been possible on a bright, moonlit
night...why not have him comment about "at least the moon is full..." Why not
have the pilot saw off the tail of the Fokker with his propeller (which DID
happen) rather than strip the wing off with his landing gear? Why not show the
Fokkers in historically accurate paint jobs, and put the BAD guy in an all-red
one?

When the one pilot gets the "twitch" and can't fly, surely it'd be more dramatic
to point out that the French cure for this was breakfast with seven gun-toting
men and a blindfold...and have his friends concoct a scheme to protect him?
When the one pilot comments that it's his plan to shoot down one enemy then go
back to America, surely it would have been more dramatic to point out that this
would be desertion, for which the man (if caught) would have been the next
blindfold recipient?

Lest it appear that I'm trying to scare people away from the movie...I'm not.
Many of the flying scenes are excellent, as are the combat scenes, and most
people don't seem as sensitive to the CGI as I am. Please DO go see it, and
decide for yourself. In my case, when I've gone to movies with lower
expectations, I quite often enjoy myself more.

Ron "You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss nine bucks goodbye" Wanttaja

[kd5sak]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> <SPOILERS AHEAD>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lest it appear that I'm trying to scare people away from the movie...I'm
> not.
> Many of the flying scenes are excellent, as are the combat scenes, and
> most
> people don't seem as sensitive to the CGI as I am. Please DO go see it,
> and
> decide for yourself. In my case, when I've gone to movies with lower
> expectations, I quite often enjoy myself more.
>
> Ron "You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss nine bucks goodbye" Wanttaja


I'm a Scot, through my Grandmother, and devoutly thrifty. I'll wait and see
it on cable.
The last movie I saw with computer generated characters was "Anaconda". The
big snakes don't move like the one in the movie. Is that also true of the
computer generated aircraft?

Harold
KD5SAK

[Charlie[_1_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:06:53 GMT, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>
>
>>>The Nieuport 17 used the 110 hp LeRhone type J rotary. The prop was
>>>fixed to the case, the crank was attached to the airframe. The entire
>>>engine spun.
>>>
>>>http://www.pwam.org/gnomeng.htm
>>
>>I fully understand that the 'real' Nieuport 17 was powered by a rotary but
>>in the movie they were radials not rotaries. You would think that for the
>>ground shots they would have dummied up a rotary so at least the engine
>>looked like it was turning. They didn't. To me this was a major flaw
>>especially for a director who claims to have gone to extremes to assure
>>accuracy.
>
>
> They apparently mostly used the flyable replicas for the ground shots. These
> were powered by VW engines, so they had a dummy "plate" attached on the inside
> of the cowling to look more closely like the "real" engines. It did look like a
> typical radial, but I suspect they were going for the rotary look. To the
> knowledgable eye, of course, they didn't look right. Due to the scarcity of
> rotaries, I didn't hold it against them...sure didn't expect them to partially
> disassemble a flyable aircraft just to install a fake rotary for a few seconds
> of ground shot.
>
> They *did* have an actual rotary on a stand, in one of the ground-maintenance
> sequences.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
And to *really* pick nits, when the maintenance guy rotated it, it
looked like it had the mass of an 18" fan blade & no compression or
friction resistance. :-)

[Jay Honeck]

> I mean, shoot, when Rawlins meets the girl at the hospital, would it have killed
> the film to have her arm in a sling?

Agreed. Mary and I figured that the director had clearly edited out
some intermediate scene(s) between the girl being shot, and that scene
in the hospital. I think they got a little bit TOO ruthless with the
knife, and lost continuity as a result.

> Rawlin's nighttime flights to save the
> girl and her family (by flying TWICE to an unlit field in the middle of a
> hundred unlit fields...) *might* have been possible on a bright, moonlit
> night...why not have him comment about "at least the moon is full..."

Aw, that scene was just unbelievable, full moon or not. Just like the
scenes in "Pearl Harbor" where the protaganist fights in the Battle of
Britain, the attack on Pearl Harbor, AND the Doolittle Raid on Japan.
It's just Hollywood being Hollywood, and there is apparently nothing
anyone can do to stop them from doing this sort of thing.

> Why not
> have the pilot saw off the tail of the Fokker with his propeller (which DID
> happen) rather than strip the wing off with his landing gear?

I actually thought THAT scene was pretty cool. No way to do THAT
without CG.

> Why not show the
> Fokkers in historically accurate paint jobs, and put the BAD guy in an all-red
> one?

Hollywood, again. The red tri-plane is universally associated with the
Germans by millions of Americans. Only 1 in a 1000 people know (or
care) that only the Red Baron flew an all-red one.

> When the one pilot gets the "twitch" and can't fly, surely it'd be more dramatic
> to point out that the French cure for this was breakfast with seven gun-toting
> men and a blindfold...and have his friends concoct a scheme to protect him?

I'll bet that story line was considered and discarded on the basis of
time. Everything in movies is about editing, and Flyboys is already
pretty long.

> When the one pilot comments that it's his plan to shoot down one enemy then go
> back to America, surely it would have been more dramatic to point out that this
> would be desertion, for which the man (if caught) would have been the next
> blindfold recipient?

Would that have been true in the all-volunteer American squadron?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm a Scot, through my Grandmother, and devoutly thrifty.

And you're a *pilot*?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[kd5sak]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> I'm a Scot, through my Grandmother, and devoutly thrifty.
>
> And you're a *pilot*?
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck


Actually, I am not. Though I'm interested, the wife has forbidden me to
pursue any such activity. Since I'm 74, I've decided she's probably right in
her position. I probably won't last long enough to build a craft and I'm
certainly too tight to buy a ready-made. (G) I do enjoy kibitzing on those
of you that do fly, though. As an former Jr. High shop teacher, I take
special interest in some of the building details I read about.


Harold
KD5SAK

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:58:46 GMT, "kd5sak" >
wrote:

>I'm a Scot, through my Grandmother, and devoutly thrifty. I'll wait and see
>it on cable.

Big mistake. The joy is in the wide open spaces. They won't come
through on cable, or DVD. I remember how disappointed I was when I saw
The High Road to China on the small screen. All the fun had gone out
of the airplane scenes.

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:52:13 GMT, "kd5sak" >
wrote:

>Actually, I am not. Though I'm interested, the wife has forbidden me to
>pursue any such activity. Since I'm 74, I've decided she's probably right in
>her position. I probably won't last long enough to build a craft and I'm
>certainly too tight to buy a ready-made.

You may have waited a bit long, but it's not irretrievable. I soloed
at 67, and seven years later I'm still going strong.

You don't buy a plane! You rent one!

The first step is to make sure that you and your wife have separate
bank accounts and credit cards. You don't ask her what she spends at
Talbot's; she doesn't ask what you spend at the airport. With luck,
your marriage might actually last for a few years ;)

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:13:18 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>Anyone else notice that nobody received any dual instruction? The first scene
>you see the main characters in an airplane, they're flying it for the first
>time. Yet there was what appeared to be a "Penguin" sitting on the field when
>they first arrived.

Actually, I don't think the French went in for dual.

They did use Penguins, of course. I think we can assume that the lads
went through the usual Penguin drill.

They did a lot of taxiing in the movie, as was shown by General
DeGaulle's notepad. Some were still taxiing when the aces were
soloing. No doubt that was the Penguins. It was just too alien a
concept for a general audience.

Anyhow, who gives a damn? It ws a great flick.

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:00:35 -0500, Charlie >
wrote:

>After suffering through the movie, during the credits my wife leaned
>over & said, "I think y'all took us to a chick-flick with some flying
>thrown in."

At the Barrington 'plex, the audience applauded.

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:50:25 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>Some of the obvious nits could have been avoided if they'd just had pilot
>involved.

David Ellison learned to fly when he was 13. He owns, inter alia, a
Hawker Hunter jet fighter.

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:06:54 +0000, Scott >
wrote:

>Yes, I saw N numbers ;)

And they were historically accurate. N for Nieuport.

[.Blueskies.]

The knock the wings off with the landing gear really happened...

There were many Fokker tripes painted red. Not all of them were red in the movie.

Many years of research went in to the movie, and the more outrageous happenings were left out, but the director said
that facts were indeed stranger than fiction...

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...
: On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:06:06 GMT, "Dave" > wrote:
:
: >
: > "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >
: > >
: > > I think the movie handled the personal horrors of war in the air pretty
: > > well. Some of the photography was great, too. I did enjoy the ground scenes at
: > > the airfield.
: >
: > Sounds like a pretty bad review Ron. I'm making the wife go and see it this
: > evening. I'm sure I'll enjoy it a lot more than some of the sappy bits of
: > treacle she's dragged me to over the years. I've never had any problem
: > suspending my "reality" filter for movies, I expect that reality makes for
: > pretty poor cinema.
:
: I'll forgive the nits if a film avoids obvious cliches, but this one swerved to
: bump through each one, just like a student driver on a potholed road.
:
: Some of the obvious nits could have been avoided if they'd just had pilot
: involved. In the "old days" when they had to use real airplanes to film movies
: like this, there were people around who could tell the director that an airplane
: just couldn't *do* the stunt he wanted. But when it's CGI..."Heck, let's have
: him knock off the German's top wing by backing into it with his landing gear.
: Make sure the gear isn't damaged, so he can land safely afterwards."
:
: Sheesh.
:
: I fully agree that some compromises usually have to be made for making a movie
: for mass consumption. I'm not complaining (much :-) that the movie showed more
: Fokker Triplanes that were ever *made* (oh, an exaggeration, but the type never
: was common). I'm not complaining that the Triplanes didn't reach the front
: until a YEAR after the film was set. The Fokker Triplane is a very identifiable
: aircraft; using them for the German airplanes let the non-pilot moviegoer
: instantly recognize which were the good guys and the bad guys.
:
: However, I *will* complain about having all the Fokker Triplanes painted red.
: That was an artistic decision completely divorced from historical reality. One
: Triplane was painted all red. One very famous one. Not every single one of
: them.
:
: Historical accuracy in popular movies isn't a paradox. Take "Master and
: Commander: The Far Side of the World." The film was very accurate...and a
: cracking good yarn, too. If it hadn't been for those damn Hobbits, it would
: have taken the best picture Oscar....
:
: Well, we'll just have to see if the Germans get WWI aviation right....
:
: http://www.redbaronmovie.com/
:
: ...though I admit some aspects of the synopsis are pre-engaging my
: gag reflex. :-)
:
: Ron Wanttaja

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"kd5sak" > wrote in message
. ..

> Actually, I am not. Though I'm interested, the wife has forbidden me to
> pursue any such activity. Since I'm 74, I've decided she's probably right
> in her position. I probably won't last long enough to build a craft and
> I'm certainly too tight to buy a ready-made. (G) I do enjoy kibitzing on
> those of you that do fly, though. As an former Jr. High shop teacher, I
> take special interest in some of the building details I read about.

Harold.........

Since you're down there in "5" land, I know a few Texas dwellers who would
be happy to take a passenger up (and back down again, of course).

Rich S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 26 Sep 2006 14:32:38 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > When the one pilot comments that it's his plan to shoot down one enemy then go
> > back to America, surely it would have been more dramatic to point out that this
> > would be desertion, for which the man (if caught) would have been the next
> > blindfold recipient?
>
> Would that have been true in the all-volunteer American squadron?

The Escadrille Lafayette wasn't the Flying Tigers... it was a duly-constituted
squadron of the French Air Service, not a mercenary unit. Members were under
French military law, which, for instance, permitted members of a unit to be
randomly selected for execution (irrespective of the soldier's individual
behavior) if that unit failed in combat.

What's more, the American government at the time was pretty prickly, claiming
that citizens who pledged allegiance to a foreign government (as is usually the
case when someone joins a country's military) would give up their US
citizenship. Lafayette Escadrille members got around that by enlisting in the
French Foreign Legion (the Legion's enlistment oath only requires that the
member obey his officers) and then transferring to the Air Service. At last
report, the Legion never has been too friendly towards cowards or deserters. :-)

One of the early Americans in the French Air Service deserted in the middle of a
spying scandal, and one would suspect the French military might well have taken
a hard line in a similar case. Geopolitical realities might have prevented the
outright execution of an American deserter, of course. But French military
prisons of the time were no fun, either...kind of like Abu Graib with garlic.

BTW, the Lafayette Escadrille still exists, as the Lafayette Group in the Armee
de l'aire. They still fly with the Indian head insignia...

http://maquette72.free.fr/themes/lafayette/2000N_escadron_2esc/mirage2000N_escadron_2esc.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[Harry K]

Jay Honeck wrote:
<snip>

> Aw, that scene was just unbelievable, full moon or not. Just like the
> scenes in "Pearl Harbor" where the protaganist fights in the Battle of
> Britain, the attack on Pearl Harbor, AND the Doolittle Raid on Japan.
> It's just Hollywood being Hollywood, and there is apparently nothing
> anyone can do to stop them from doing this sort of thing.
>

<snip>

> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Ah, Pearl Harbor. Brings tears to me eyes how bad that movie was. Even
suspending my gullability I couldn't stomach it. I even read the book
and it wasn't much better. A whole bunch of cliches strung end to end
with only a nebulous story line. I mean, really! Boy finds girl, boy
goes to war, boy gets killed, boy shows up allive...BARF.

One of the worst was the "We need some hotshot bomber pilots. Lets go
out and get us a bunch of fighter pilots"...uhuh.

Harry K

[kd5sak]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "kd5sak" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> Since you're down there in "5" land, I know a few Texas dwellers who would
> be happy to take a passenger up (and back down again, of course).
>
> Rich S.
>
Wellsir, I was a Texican for nearly half my life. I know how Texans feel
about
outlanders, though, I might find myself as jettisonable ballast rather than
a passenger.
Actually, long a reloader of .44 Mag, I'd not shoot anyone elses reloads and
would rather
not fly if I can't do it myself. That may be a kind of Texas attitude, but
what can I say, I was still young and impressionable when I first wrote GTT
on the door and left Oklahoma.(G) I worked some years for the Federal
Government, taught in the Dallas schools for eleven years, and
then put in 12 or so more helping design retrievable packers for Otis
Engineering (a Halliburton owned company). Once the GoodWife and I were both
retired we returned north of the Red River where we still have relatives. I
do appreciate the offer, though.

Harold
KD5SAK

[Mark Hickey]

Charlie > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>> They *did* have an actual rotary on a stand, in one of the ground-maintenance
>> sequences.
>>
>And to *really* pick nits, when the maintenance guy rotated it, it
>looked like it had the mass of an 18" fan blade & no compression or
>friction resistance. :-)

You kiddin? They went so far as to simulate bad rings on the "bad
motor". Gotta be impressed! ;-)

Mark "photorealism" Hickey

[Dave Stadt]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> Charlie > wrote:
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>>> They *did* have an actual rotary on a stand, in one of the
>>> ground-maintenance
>>> sequences.
>>>
>>And to *really* pick nits, when the maintenance guy rotated it, it
>>looked like it had the mass of an 18" fan blade & no compression or
>>friction resistance. :-)
>
> You kiddin? They went so far as to simulate bad rings on the "bad
> motor". Gotta be impressed! ;-)
>
> Mark "photorealism" Hickey

More than likely missing sparkplugs.

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"kd5sak" > wrote in message
m...>
> Wellsir, I was a Texican for nearly half my life. I know how Texans feel
> about
> outlanders, though, I might find myself as jettisonable ballast rather
> than a passenger.
> Actually, long a reloader of .44 Mag, I'd not shoot anyone elses reloads
> and would rather
> not fly if I can't do it myself. That may be a kind of Texas attitude, but
> what can I say, I was still young and impressionable when I first wrote
> GTT on the door and left Oklahoma.(G) I worked some years for the Federal
> Government, taught in the Dallas schools for eleven years, and
> then put in 12 or so more helping design retrievable packers for Otis
> Engineering (a Halliburton owned company). Once the GoodWife and I were
> both retired we returned north of the Red River where we still have
> relatives. I do appreciate the offer, though.

Hal..........

I've still got most of a box of .44's loaded by Elmer and would hate to
shoot them up. I know there's guys out there who can fly, shoot, and make
muzzle loader. I'll shoot their reloads, ride in their planes and drink
their lightning. Every cobbler to his own last, as my dad used to say.

See ya,
Rich S.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
> BTW, the Lafayette Escadrille still exists, as the Lafayette Group in the
> Armee de l'aire. They still fly with the Indian head insignia...

<http://maquette72.free.fr/themes/lafayette/2000N_escadron_2esc/mirage2000N_escadron_2esc.jpg>


http://www.neam.org/lafescweb/afterthewar.html
Lafayette Escadrille - Post WWI
"The history of the Lafayette Escadrille did not end when the squadron was
incorporated into the American Air Service. Recognizing the contribution of
the American volunteers who flew for the French cause, the Service
Aeronautique designated one of its own squadrons to carry on the tradition."


MonBlac

[Dave[_2_]]

"Rich S." > wrote in message news:U-

> I've still got most of a box of .44's loaded by Elmer and would hate to
> shoot them up. I know there's guys out there who can fly, shoot, and make
> muzzle loader. I'll shoot their reloads, ride in their planes and drink
> their lightning. Every cobbler to his own last, as my dad used to say.
>


There's a name I've not heard since I walked away from the shooting sports
when the "combat" guys started showing up at my local indoor range. Elmer
really has to be the grandaddy of American shooting. I lent out his book a
number of years ago, I should go hunt that down. I'm amazed at the life he
led.

[Dave[_2_]]

>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>>> They *did* have an actual rotary on a stand, in one of the
>>> ground-maintenance
>>> sequences.
>>>
>>And to *really* pick nits, when the maintenance guy rotated it, it
>>looked like it had the mass of an 18" fan blade & no compression or
>>friction resistance. :-)
>

Hi Ron, I was once a volunteer custodian at a local museum that had a Le
Rhone, I gave it a spin one day, to watch the valve action and to try to
understand the ignition. Even with plugs in they spin pretty easy.

[John Ousterhout[_2_]]

Rich S. wrote:
>
> I've still got most of a box of .44's loaded by Elmer and would hate to
> shoot them up.

Elmer Keith?

That's a treasure.

- J.O.-

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
message news:2jESg.166718$FQ1.40082@attbi_s71...
> Rich S. wrote:
>>
>> I've still got most of a box of .44's loaded by Elmer and would hate to
>> shoot them up.
>
> Elmer Keith?
>
> That's a treasure.
>
> - J.O.-

I fired a cylinder load at the Desert Gang Bang. Lord almighty! Out of an
original Blackhawk, they rapped my knuckles so hard that the .458 was a
pleasure to touch off.

Rich S.

[Matt Whiting]

John Ousterhout wrote:
> Rich S. wrote:
>
>>
>> I've still got most of a box of .44's loaded by Elmer and would hate
>> to shoot them up.
>
>
> Elmer Keith?

Is there any other Elmer? :-)

Matt

[kd5sak]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John Ousterhout wrote:
>> Rich S. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've still got most of a box of .44's loaded by Elmer and would hate to
>>> shoot them up.
>>
>>
>> Elmer Keith?
>
> Is there any other Elmer? :-)
>
> Matt

Not if you are a shooter, however, Hams refer to their mentors as Elmers.
I've done some hunting thru the internet but can't come up with origin of
Ham Elmers.

Harold
KD5SAK

[Ron Wanttaja]

<SPOILER ALERT>




On 26 Sep 2006 20:01:55 -0700, "Harry K" > wrote:
>
> > Aw, that scene was just unbelievable, full moon or not. Just like the
> > scenes in "Pearl Harbor" where the protaganist fights in the Battle of
> > Britain, the attack on Pearl Harbor, AND the Doolittle Raid on Japan.
> > It's just Hollywood being Hollywood, and there is apparently nothing
> > anyone can do to stop them from doing this sort of thing.
>
> Ah, Pearl Harbor. Brings tears to me eyes how bad that movie was.

Urrrrp. I am reminded of the old proverb, "I cried because I had no shoes,
until I had a man who had no feet."

Or to paraphrase a more recent quote: "Sir, I've seen 'Pearl Harbor,' and
'Flyboys' is no 'Pearl Harbor.'"

Flyboys doesn't even come CLOSE to the skankiness of PH. I fully intend to get
the DVD of Flyboys and watch the movie again...skipping through the worst bits,
of course, but there's no way I'm even getting NEAR 'Pearl Harbor.'

All right, enough of my whining. What did I *like* about Flyboys?

1. Introductory scenes at the beginning. Thought the movie did very well at
introducing the main characters and their varying backgrounds.
2. Most of the acting. Richard's probably a better judge than I, but I thought
that young cast did pretty well.
3. The *ages* of the pilots. We tend to forget how young they were. I love
the way the producers found some baby-faced actors.
4. Jean Reno. He's always fun to watch.
5. Most of the combat sequences. Very exciting...I may have some nits about
how the planes moved, but the CGI was used effectively to allow the action to be
both exciting and easily followed.
6. Ground sequences around the airfield. I though it appeared to be a pretty
realistic depiction of a WWI combat airfield. I especially liked them showing
Rawlins inspecting his own ammunition...a pretty common theme, among the
survivors of the WWI air war.
7. Depiction of the Germans. Yes, we had a nice, hissable villain, but he was
nicely contrasted by the other major German pilot.
8. Rawlins' internal conflict re: the "good guy" German... his reluctance to
shoot him down after the guy had spared his own life on a previous flight. This
was a well-depicted internal conflict, very nicely depicted.
9. The scenes in the pilot's mess, where the (new) Americans can't believe the
old hands are ignoring the recent losses.

Doing some heavier-duty thinking about the movie made me reflect that I was
perhaps wrong in my earlier comment that the control positions of the CGI
airplanes weren't matching those of a real aircraft. The main case was one
where a Fokker in an established 90-degree bank was showing almost full left
rudder. I came to realize that the rudder position was probably accurate *for a
rotary-engined* aircraft! The gyroscopic effect of the high pitch rate would
probably be driving the nose to the right, hence the depiction of full left
rudder. Cool.

Ron Wanttaja

[John Ammeter]

Rich,

do you know the specs of that load??

John

Rich S. wrote:
> "John Ousterhout" > wrote in
> message news:2jESg.166718$FQ1.40082@attbi_s71...
>
>>Rich S. wrote:
>>
>>>I've still got most of a box of .44's loaded by Elmer and would hate to
>>>shoot them up.
>>
>>Elmer Keith?
>>
>>That's a treasure.
>>
>>- J.O.-
>
>
> I fired a cylinder load at the Desert Gang Bang. Lord almighty! Out of an
> original Blackhawk, they rapped my knuckles so hard that the .458 was a
> pleasure to touch off.
>
> Rich S.
>
>

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
news:trWdnZ1LtM34sYbYnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@cablespeedwa .com...
> Rich,
>
> do you know the specs of that load??

John ..........

I do not. It has a 240 gr. lead gas-check SWC bullet stoked by ~20 gr. of
what appears to be 2400.

I seem to remember a chrono reading of 1200 - 1250 fps out of a 7-1/2" bbl.
These numbers are dredged out of my fuzzy memory and are not to be trusted.

Rich S.

[Ebby]

I saw the film on opening day. Liked it. Especially the scenery and
settings. I am building a biplane and this film was a great motivator to
continue.

One part that I really like was how the hangar areas look so cluttered with
parts all over, the mock-up cockpit and repairs. You have to like that poor
bas***d who was welding in several scenes at all hours of the day.

CGI planes are better than the models on strings from older pictures but I
wish they could program some fuzzy logic into the algorithms so the planes
moved more realistically.

my two cents

Ebby

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:12:41 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
>>>message news:hHGRg.160371$FQ1.68993@attbi_s71...
>>>> Robert Baslee's company - Airdrome Aeroplanes - makes kits (very good
>>>> ones
>>>> IMO) for various WWI aircraft, including Nieuports and Fokkers.
>>>> http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/
>>>>
>>>> Robert was contracted by the movie company to built two - later changed
>>>> to
>>>> four - full-scale Nieuport 17 replicas. Robert and his helpers
>>>> completed
>>>> and flew the aircraft in only 52 days. After test flights they were
>>>> shipped to England for filming. The special effects folks "aged" them
>>>> to
>>>> add authenticity. These aircraft used VW engines with a propeller
>>>> reduction. A casting of rotary engine cylinders was used to cover the
>>>> cowl
>>>> opening when the aircraft were on the ground.
>>>
>>>They were radials not rotarys.
>>
>> No, they were rotaries.
>>
>> The Nieuport 17 used the 110 hp LeRhone type J rotary. The prop was
>> fixed to the case, the crank was attached to the airframe. The entire
>> engine spun.
>>
>> http://www.pwam.org/gnomeng.htm
>
> I fully understand that the 'real' Nieuport 17 was powered by a rotary but
> in the movie they were radials not rotaries. You would think that for the
> ground shots they would have dummied up a rotary so at least the engine
> looked like it was turning. They didn't. To me this was a major flaw
> especially for a director who claims to have gone to extremes to assure
> accuracy.
>
>
>
>

[Sylvain]

Ebby wrote:


> CGI planes are better than the models on strings from older pictures but I
> wish they could program some fuzzy logic into the algorithms so the planes
> moved more realistically.

I haven't seen this movie yet, will probably go this weekend, but what
I have noticed with CGI planes in movies is that the shots are always
'perfect', I mean, no camera shaking, always good lighting, always
correctly framed; which might be one reason why the thing does not
look 'real' especially in action scenes, because intuitively we do
expect imperfections; I mean even if the flight model is in fact
perfect as well. The only tv serie / movie where I have seen a
deliberate effort to introduce imperfections in CGI scenes were the
sci-fi serie firefly / serenity, and it is pretty effective...

--Sylvain

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:35:26 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>The main case was one
>where a Fokker in an established 90-degree bank was showing almost full left
>rudder.

Yes, that really bugged me, not only about the German but about the
French planes. But like you I decided that the movie-makers probably
had worked this out, and that Nieuports actually did require all that
rudder input.

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:31:16 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:35:26 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:
>
>>The main case was one
>>where a Fokker in an established 90-degree bank was showing almost full left
>>rudder.
>
>Yes, that really bugged me, not only about the German but about the
>French planes. But like you I decided that the movie-makers probably
>had worked this out, and that Nieuports actually did require all that
>rudder input.

Turn, or knife-edge? (Or knife-edge while using up elevator to skid?)

Don

[.Blueskies.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...

: Sadly, I don't get to see much on the big screen these days. I do,
: however, know all the dialog to every Disney film ever released on
: DVD.
:
: I'll try to break away and see this one before it closes.
:

That is good! My daughter also plays them over and over, and she recites the dialog as we drive to the store. Life is
good, and so is FlyBoys...

[.Blueskies.]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message ...
: On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:31:16 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford.net>
: wrote:
:
: >On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:35:26 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
: > wrote:
: >
: >>The main case was one
: >>where a Fokker in an established 90-degree bank was showing almost full left
: >>rudder.
: >
: >Yes, that really bugged me, not only about the German but about the
: >French planes. But like you I decided that the movie-makers probably
: >had worked this out, and that Nieuports actually did require all that
: >rudder input.
:
: Turn, or knife-edge? (Or knife-edge while using up elevator to skid?)
:
: Don


Or steering the guns...

[Matt Barrow]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford.net> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:35:26 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> > wrote:
>
>>The main case was one
>>where a Fokker in an established 90-degree bank was showing almost full
>>left
>>rudder.
>
> Yes, that really bugged me, not only about the German but about the
> French planes. But like you I decided that the movie-makers probably
> had worked this out, and that Nieuports actually did require all that
> rudder input.

http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/09/flyboys_a_revie.php (Flyboys: A
Review)

Lengthy...detailed!

Matt


--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly, but the traitor moves
amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the
traitor
appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness
that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he
works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the
city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A
murderer
is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero