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

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

("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)

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.

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

"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

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. :-)

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"

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"

"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