Flyboys Movie: the aircraft

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