If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft
("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) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft (CAUTION SPOILERS)
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft (CAUTION SPOILERS)
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft
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. :-) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft (CAUTION SPOILERS)
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" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft (CAUTION SPOILERS)
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" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Flyboys Movie: the aircraft (CAUTION SPOILERS)
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
Most reliable homebuilt helicopter? | tom pettit | Home Built | 35 | September 29th 05 02:24 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |