Flyboys Movie: the aircraft

"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.

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.

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.-

"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.

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

"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

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 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

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.

"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.

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.