Any ex-LW adviser for 1969 BofB film?

[Ruy Horta]

Didn't Galland pull out because of his disagreements with the makers of the film (on various issues including the use of the Nazi salute).

[David Ransome]

Where exactly did you see the converted Percival Proctors?

My understanding was that one or two had been partially converted but never used as the handling characteristics were awful and that the makers went for scale models in the end. Study of the clip you attached shows these models in action . If you have a look at the Rudhall books on the making of the film the differences between the Ju87 and the converted PP are quite evident - less wing camber, cowling/cockpit/fuselage ratios etc. Books still in storage so can't quote pages etc. but maybe someone else can confirm.

The Mosley book to which Doug refers is excellent and outlines the 'feuds' between Galland and the film makers. Still have my original 1969 copy presented to me for something or other at a school speech day.

Regards

David

[tcolvin]

I now realise there were no converted Proctors but only models.

All questions answered, thank you, except that Kondor Models don't seem to claim their new Stuka has functioning dive brakes and bomb cradle, although there can be no reason they couldn't be added and the model dived vertically from scale 8,000 feet. Presumably models can now be flown with the controller using a joystick sitting in front of a screen fed with video streamed from the cockpit.

So hopefully next time we could see Blitzkrieg re-enacted with all systems operating. Producers will still have to remember to train actors appropriately for 1939/40, since the common view of soldiers has been affected by Saving Private Ryan with troops behaving like pot-smoking Vietnam-era GIs.

Tony

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

… although there can be no reason they couldn't be added and the model dived vertically from scale 8,000 feet.

Presumably models can now be flown with the controller using a joystick sitting in front of a screen fed with video streamed from the cockpit.
Tony

1) Airframe stress on the pull-out, requiring stronger, heavier structure? I guess it would be a problem in a model, as in the real thing.

2) Here's your answer!

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

1) Airframe stress on the pull-out, requiring stronger, heavier structure? I guess it woul be a problem in a model, as in the real thing.

Not today Nick with carbon fiber and Kevlar. Scale jets doing 200mph and over stay together in the air, so I can't see a problem with the pull-out of a Ju-87. With programmable controls even the pullout would a cinch.

It is not hard to understand why the Germans failed during the BoB with Spit IXs as opposition (see 2:30 in the video)

[Bombphoon]

....Stuka making a crash landing on the radar station more or less intact; aircraft exploding in mid air with the wings just falling off; Heinkel model crashing into the sea trailing the radio-control wire aerial; the fires of the London Blitz glowing like someone was switching them on and off, plus moving around over London as they were superimposed; THAT 1960's front door and doorbell; no Do17s, Ju88s, Me110's etc; Susannah York's awful 1960's haircut and make-up etc etc etc...

...we could all pick dozens more faults with the film but I still quite happily watch it, because it was made for all the right reasons as a tribute to The Few and accept its shortcomings because there was no CGI at the time. There has also never been a film or book written that does not have mistakes in it.

Seeing as the film industry has run out of new ideas and rehashes old favourites all the time, perhaps they could do something useful and remake BoB with CGI and more accurate detail?

The extras on the DVD show that Galland was the Luftwaffe advisor and the producers had rows with him about various issues e.g. Galland claimed that Luftwaffe pilots never machine-gunned bailed out RAF pilots: the producers said they had evidence they did. It also says that the film cost so much to make, they barely made a penny, even possibly making a loss.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Bombphoon

...we could all pick dozens more faults with the film but I am still quite happily watch it, because...

… of the sequences where a formation of Spits peels off into a dive — they are such a beautiful sight.

Actually — doorbell aside — I thought the film did a pretty good job with the means at its disposal. The overall story was reasonably faithful to history with lots of recognisable incidents.

GCI isn't the answer to everything either, not when it's combined with ignorance of history. There was that (Spielberg?) TV mini-series where beautifully rendered Bf 109 Es (complete with tail struts) were attacking B-17s. Or "Enemy at the Gates" where each (otherwise believable) Ju 87 had three underwing racks loaded with long sleek bombs more suited to an F-15E Strike Eagle. Or "Dr Who: The Empty Child" where the He 111s flew over in close formation — at night!

What I could never understand are the scenes of air attack in "Das Boot" — why didn't they just get some film of the FAA's Swordfish and cut it in?

Highly commended: Ian McKellen's "Richard the Third", set in the 1930s–40s with a real Blenheim composited into one of the battles.

[young knobby]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Didn't Galland pull out because of his disagreements with the makers of the film (on various issues including the use of the Nazi salute).

That is my understanding. The producers wanted the three Luftwaffe Pilots who met Goring off the train to give the Nazi salute, Galland insisted that it never happened.