Flyboys Movie: the aircraft

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 -

"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 -

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

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/...48%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

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.

"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.

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

"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.

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"

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