Flyboys (Perhaps to be spoiled in the course of discussion)

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-22 10:58pm

Sooo....normally I'd be the first in line to condemn a film for gross historical inaccuracy, and be as virulent about doing it as my awe-inspiring wit could muster.

Not this time, for a couple reasons.

1) It really is quite a good flick. A bit too Hollywood here and there, but I am in no way, shape, or form sorry to have plunked down my ducats to see it.

2) Being an avid WWI aviation buff, the success of this film would guarantee that future WWI films will not be dismissed out-of-hand.

3) Being a member of the avid WWI aviation buff community, no matter this film's relative performance at the box office, we stand to gain something out of it's release due to increase in interest. Any increase in interest is worthwhile no matter how small...

4) Technical and historical inaccuracies aside, I was able to maintain an almost child-like suspension of disbelief throughout nearly it's entire 2 1/2 hours.

Red Fokker Dr.Is escorting Zeppelins in early 1917 or not, I say go see it.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-23 01:03am

Are the aircraft behaving as they should? That is, are they too fast or do you get a sense of realistic speed and aerobatic realism?

I'll probably get this on DVD because there is a real dearth of recent WWI stuff on film, let alone of aircraft!

phred · Post by **phred** » 2006-09-23 03:53am

i want to see this in theatre, but alas my friends overruled me and i was forced to watch "The Protector" instead.
im definitely getting this on dvd when ot comes out, regardless of whether or not i see it in theatres. its an airplane movie and deserves my support

Marko Dash · Post by **Marko Dash** » 2006-09-23 05:49am

Did it do anything with Richthofen? I assume they have, if not, how can you have a W.W.I fighter movie without the infamous red baron?

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-23 06:38am

Marko Dash wrote:Did it do anything with Richthofen? I assume they have, if not, how can you have a W.W.I fighter movie without the infamous red baron?

Well, Richthofen didn't survive the entire war, you know...

I plan to go see this movie on the weekend. I particularly interested in the flying scenes (of course). There's been some buzz about the airplanes "not quite right" in some respects (and I don't mean color schemes, I mean physics) but so far, I've only seen small bits of the trailers, not enough to really know for sure.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-23 01:22pm

Broomstick wrote:I plan to go see this movie on the weekend. I particularly interested in the flying scenes (of course). There's been some buzz about the airplanes "not quite right" in some respects (and I don't mean color schemes, I mean physics) but so far, I've only seen small bits of the trailers, not enough to really know for sure.

I'm curious what they did or are going to do with the replicas built for the film.

I also hope there are some Spad XIII's in the film. Hands down, my favorite fighter of the era. This one belongs to the NASM:

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-23 04:05pm

As to aircraft behavior, it's *mostly* correct, but there are some rates of climb and a couple manouvers depicted that are pure fantasy.
Having seen pre-war film of looping exhibitions, and using those as a referance, I'd say a lot of the dogfighting is quite good, with the more fantastical elements not being so bad as to ruin everything.
There's some ground attack bits that are awfully questionable, as well as some extreme low-altitude manouvers that would require skill beyond, far beyond that of most pilots (possibly excepting Ernst Udet)...but I guess you could assume luck is what's being depicted and be fair in that assumption.

There's a few structural failures that are right on the money, and speeds look about right. Control surface depiction was something that I found very gratifying; looked supar-cool to me.

The only aircraft that are correct for the time period of the film are the Nieuports and the Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutters; Fokker Dr.Is, SE5as, Gotha G.IVs, Handley Page 0/400s and Bristol F2bs were only introduced in mid-late 1917.
They could have easily made the Gotha more accurate with a different color scheme and deletion of the upper-wing fuel tanks; the biggest difference between a correct-for-period G.II or G.III and the G.IV was the degree of wing-sweepback, dihedral, and those fuel tanks.
It was orgasmically beautiful to watch, nonetheless.
There's a fly-by of a Zeppelin with it's escorting Dr.Is that, while offensively (fighters did NOT escort Zeppelins, EVER!) inaccurate, is just so fucking good looking and sounding it almost brought a tear to my eye. Really beautiful.
Don't know where they recorded the engine sound effects for this, but they make me erect. Exactly what you'd expect a 1000 cubic inch straight-six running at 1200rpm to sound like.

While the overall color scheme for Escadrille N.124 was right, there is no record of pilots carrying personalised markings of any sort, beyond each aircraft's Indian head being hand-painted and unique.
The planes are way, WAY too filthy, though. WWI aircraft were covered in varnish, and that's one material you want to keep as clean of oil and other solvents, not to mention plain old dirt, as you can.

One thing that particularly bothered me was that they had them operating over a considerable area of the western front, but they seemingly never moved from their aerodrome in the Verdun region, which they historically did, and often.
A Nieuport 17 could probably have flown to Paris from Verdun, but only as a one-way ferry flight, and not in a combat operation.

The bullets leave smoky trails; that's one technical inaccuracy more unacceptable to me than a squadron of over-all red Dr.Is...

Aside from these points, it's otherwise very good. Perhaps enough to ruin a movie for the more curmudgeonly, but I truly enjoyed myself immensely, and Im one hell of a curmdegon when the mood strikes.

A positive note on accuracy; the ground sets in particular are exceptionally good.
Equipment, tents, vehicles, 1916 Paris; all of it is extremely accurate and/or convincing.

...oh, and one other thing; despite being advertised as a romantic thriller, this is one romance that DOES NOT have a happy ending, I found that to be remarkably refreshing for Hollywood in the way they depicted it, and realistic.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-23 04:33pm

Addendum:

Greg VanWyngarden, a noted and published WWI aviation historian had this to say...

I'll limit my comments to one note: did you realize that the little note from Cassidy that 'Rawlings' reads at the memorial service for Cassidy and Porter is taken almost verbatim from a genuine note left behind by the real James McConnell of Escadrille N.124? After McConnell was killed on 19 March 1917, Thenault opened a note that McConnell had left to be opened in case of his demise. It read, in part:

" My burial is of no import. Make it as easy as possible for yourselves. I have no religion and do not care for any service. If the omission would embarrass you, I presume I could stand the performance. Good luck to the rest of you. God damn Germany and vive la France."

When I heard the very similar version in the film, I nearly leapt from my seat. In case anyone thinks the romantic relationship depicted in the film is too unlikely, take note: At the morning services for McConnell held on 2 April 1917 at the American Church in Paris, no less than three weeping mesdemoiselles showed up, each thinking she was McConnell's fiancee. One of them later married another N.124 pilot.

Do NOT boycott this film simply because you are rankled by its 'historical inaccuracies'. Its heart is definitely in the right place, and any success it enjoys can only filter out to the WWI aviation enthusiast community in many ways.

Greg VanWyngarden

Emphasis mine.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-23 05:36pm

Frank Hipper wrote:Having seen pre-war film of looping exhibitions, and using those as a referance, I'd say a lot of the dogfighting is quite good, with the more fantastical elements not being so bad as to ruin everything.
There's some ground attack bits that are awfully questionable, as well as some extreme low-altitude manouvers that would require skill beyond, far beyond that of most pilots (possibly excepting Ernst Udet)...but I guess you could assume luck is what's being depicted and be fair in that assumption.

One advantage of CGI is that it allows manuvers on screen that would be very dangerous to have real pilots attempt. In filming Hell's Angels (I think that's the film) two pilots were killed and another broke both legs. In filming Top Gun one of the flat spin scenes actually ended in death in real life. As much as I want to see amazing flying on-screen, as much as I enjoy it, I don't want people to die for my entertainment.

The trick is not to let the CGI folks violate the laws of physics or wander into wankfesting improbability. Or make errors obvious to a pilot - in Pearl Harbor I almost quit with one of the early scenes that just struck me as totally improbable, even if physically possible in a technical sense.

There's a few structural failures that are right on the money, and speeds look about right. Control surface depiction was something that I found very gratifying; looked supar-cool to me.

Oh, now I definitely want to see this!

There's a fly-by of a Zeppelin with it's escorting Dr.Is that, while offensively (fighters did NOT escort Zeppelins, EVER!) inaccurate, is just so fucking good looking and sounding it almost brought a tear to my eye. Really beautiful.

That's true about the zepps and escorts? I did not know that. I know that there had been experiments involving combining zepps and fixed wings in some operations, and at one point the US had an airship designed to carry airplanes aboard, launch, and even retrieve them. Fascinating stuff, really, but I think sometimes the line blurs between what was put on paper and what actually was done.

Don't know where they recorded the engine sound effects for this, but they make me erect. Exactly what you'd expect a 1000 cubic inch straight-six running at 1200rpm to sound like.

Oh really? I'll have to see.... Frank, perhaps you'd like to come play in my sandbox some weekend...?

While the overall color scheme for Escadrille N.124 was right, there is no record of pilots carrying personalised markings of any sort, beyond each aircraft's Indian head being hand-painted and unique.

But it might be forgivable as a form of literary license to help the audience (which will be largely non-pilot and non-warbuff) keep track of the various characters.

The planes are way, WAY too filthy, though. WWI aircraft were covered in varnish, and that's one material you want to keep as clean of oil and other solvents, not to mention plain old dirt, as you can.

You want to keep any airplane as clean as possible, but in actual operation they do get filthy. Even modern airplanes that don't leak oil and stuff nearly as bad as the WWI era. Add in dirt fields, or actual mud... well, I'll have to see the movie. But I'd think that in actual combat keeping them clean would be a constant battle in and of itself. I fly strictly civilian, but I've come back from open-cockpits and grass fields muddy, oily, covered in dirt, dust, bugs, and once or twice even a little bloody (kicked up debris, very ouchy). Given the propensity of the WWI era engines to throw oil this would only be worse.

The bullets leave smoky trails; that's one technical inaccuracy more unacceptable to me than a squadron of over-all red Dr.Is...

I heard they made the DrI's all red to help the general public keep the good guys and the bad guys straight in dogfighting scenes. A forgivable thing, in my mind - it can be difficult to tell airplanes apart when moving fast and such. Forgivable if it makes the story more accessible to the general public and doesn't detract from the story.

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2006-09-23 06:09pm

Frank Hipper wrote:The bullets leave smoky trails; that's one technical inaccuracy more unacceptable to me than a squadron of over-all red Dr.Is...

I'm not particularly familiar with WWI German aircraft armament, but at least Austria-Hungary used smoke tracers from '16 to mid-'17 (when they switched to proper tracers), and various incendiary bullets (all of which were already ignited in flight, thus trailing smoke).
Honestly, the "squadron of red Dr.Is" would bother me more than the smoke.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-24 12:11am

Broomstick wrote:One advantage of CGI is that it allows manuvers on screen that would be very dangerous to have real pilots attempt. In filming Hell's Angels (I think that's the film) two pilots were killed and another broke both legs. In filming Top Gun one of the flat spin scenes actually ended in death in real life. As much as I want to see amazing flying on-screen, as much as I enjoy it, I don't want people to die for my entertainment.

The trick is not to let the CGI folks violate the laws of physics or wander into wankfesting improbability. Or make errors obvious to a pilot - in Pearl Harbor I almost quit with one of the early scenes that just struck me as totally improbable, even if physically possible in a technical sense.

There's a goodly amount of improbability here to one extant or another, but, this is no Pearl Harbor, a film I cannot tolerate long enough to sit all the way through.

Oh, now I definitely want to see this!

Being a pilot, and being somewhat familiar with you as a member, I'm well aware of your totally justified contempt for citing flight sims as evidence.
Be that as it may, in order to make as tight a left turn as possible in Red Baron 3D's Western Front Patch version 7.1, while flying a Fokker Dr.I, you have to keep your rudder cranked hard left in order to keep your nose down, what with the gyroscopic forces of the rotary engine wanting to bring it up.
That is exactly what they show in the film, and it was exciting for me.

That's true about the zepps and escorts?

Yes'm.
Most Zeppelin missions involved ranges and altitudes far in excess of single seater capabilities.

I know that there had been experiments involving combining zepps and fixed wings in some operations, and at one point the US had an airship designed to carry airplanes aboard, launch, and even retrieve them. Fascinating stuff, really, but I think sometimes the line blurs between what was put on paper and what actually was done.

USS Akron and Macon most certainly did operate Curtiss F9C-2 fighters, but that was during 1933-35; I've heard remarks made somewhere about the Germans at least being interested in the idea of operating planes from Zeppelins during WWI, but if it even got so far as a paper sketch, or even if it's true, I have no idea.

Oh really? I'll have to see.... Frank, perhaps you'd like to come play in my sandbox some weekend...?

*squeals excitedly*
I'd love to; my experience in anything other than a big, sedate airliner is limited to a ride up to 10,000 feet in a beat-up old Cessna to go skydiving out of...once.

But it might be forgivable as a form of literary license to help the audience (which will be largely non-pilot and non-warbuff) keep track of the various characters.

Like I said in the OP, if this flick generates any interest at all in WWI aviation, guys like me can only stand to gain.
Then again, one of the characters has an insignia that is an exact duplicate of Escadrille N.15's squadron marking. Naughty.

You want to keep any airplane as clean as possible, but in actual operation they do get filthy. Even modern airplanes that don't leak oil and stuff nearly as bad as the WWI era. Add in dirt fields, or actual mud... well, I'll have to see the movie. But I'd think that in actual combat keeping them clean would be a constant battle in and of itself. I fly strictly civilian, but I've come back from open-cockpits and grass fields muddy, oily, covered in dirt, dust, bugs, and once or twice even a little bloody (kicked up debris, very ouchy).

Those are all excellent points, but the film shows the planes to be absolutely grubby as hell even on take-off.
Cleaning aircraft as soon as possible after returning from a mission was an activity that ground crews definitely performed, in my opinion they're just way too caked with filth.

Given the propensity of the WWI era engines to throw oil this would only be worse.

This raises an idea I had that the makers of the film could have earned points with among toilet humor afficionados had they shown it; rotary engines famously used castor oil as a lubricant.

Castor oil is a powerful laxative, so powerful in fact that Mussolini's Italy used it as an interrogation tool.

The latrine was the first stop for many WWI pilots on landing, and I'd imagine more than few got there too late.
Those poor launderers...if you take my meaning.

I heard they made the DrI's all red to help the general public keep the good guys and the bad guys straight in dogfighting scenes. A forgivable thing, in my mind - it can be difficult to tell airplanes apart when moving fast and such. Forgivable if it makes the story more accessible to the general public and doesn't detract from the story.

True, that, but part of my objection to them is that in the popular mind there were two aircraft during WWI; an all-red Triplane and a certain beagle's flying doghouse.
Halberstadt D.IIs, Albatros D.Is and D.IIs were what these mercenary Yankee interlopers (did I say that out loud?

) would have been encountering over the Verdun sector in late 1916 early 1917. And beauteous planes they were...

That NOS Guy · Post by **That NOS Guy** » 2006-09-24 12:25am

Upon watching this film the only thing that can be said is "Suddenly triplanes! Hundreds of them!"

It actually wasn't halfbad, almost a throwback to the John Wayne style of WWII movies.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-09-24 02:04am

The red baron's "little brother" (actually there were two german aces named Von Richtofen) did survive the war, and actually had a better kill ratio then his more famous relative. (I forget if they were actual brothers or close cousins)

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2006-09-24 02:20am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:The red baron's "little brother" (actually there were two german aces named Von Richtofen) did survive the war, and actually had a better kill ratio then his more famous relative. (I forget if they were actual brothers or close cousins)

They were brothers.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-09-24 02:39am

I knew about him, but forgot most of the gritty details.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-24 02:42am

Lothar finished the war with only half as many kills as Manfred, and had a career of near-equal length.
His kill ratio was not better.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-09-24 03:31am

Seeing that this is the first real WWI airwar movie since The Blue Max, I'm inclined to give it half a chance. I'm hoping they didn't depict all the German planes in red, however. Nothing was more colourful in that war than the squadron/camoflague schemes on those machines. Some of which almost seemed to evoke medieval heraldry.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2006-09-24 04:05am

Patrick Degan wrote:Seeing that this is the first real WWI airwar movie since The Blue Max, I'm inclined to give it half a chance. I'm hoping they didn't depict all the German planes in red, however. Nothing was more colourful in that war than the squadron/camoflague schemes on those machines. Some of which almost seemed to evoke medieval heraldry.

If I remember right, there were only two German planes that weren't red, the "Black Falcon" (can't remember the pilot's name), and the Gotha bombers.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-24 09:19am

Frank Hipper wrote:There's a goodly amount of improbability here to one extant or another, but, this is no Pearl Harbor, a film I cannot tolerate long enough to sit all the way through.

I required a hefty dose of alcohol.

Oddly enough, Pearl Harbor was lent to us by a pilot who actually liked it. But then, he's a bit of an odd duck, being a he-man who actually prefers chick flicks. Seriously, he like weeping romance dealing with emotions and feelings and all that touchy-feely stuff. I don't understand it at all, being definitely an action/adventure fan.

Oh, now I definitely want to see this!
Being a pilot, and being somewhat familiar with you as a member, I'm well aware of your totally justified contempt for citing flight sims as evidence.

Flight sims aren't all bad... just that too many people don't understand their limitations.

Be that as it may, in order to make as tight a left turn as possible in Red Baron 3D's Western Front Patch version 7.1, while flying a Fokker Dr.I, you have to keep your rudder cranked hard left in order to keep your nose down, what with the gyroscopic forces of the rotary engine wanting to bring it up.

That is exactly what they show in the film, and it was exciting for me.

That's good.

I remember the first time I was in an airplane that required a strange (to me) control input and I blurted out "that's not right!". I was sternly instructed that whatever control input is required to get the desired result is the correct one - even if other airplanes don't require that particular combination. Engine effects can be quite significant, as can things like the propellor p-factor.

That's true about the zepps and escorts?
Yes'm. Most Zeppelin missions involved ranges and altitudes far in excess of single seater capabilities.
I know that there had been experiments involving combining zepps and fixed wings in some operations, and at one point the US had an airship designed to carry airplanes aboard, launch, and even retrieve them. Fascinating stuff, really, but I think sometimes the line blurs between what was put on paper and what actually was done.
USS Akron and Macon most certainly did operate Curtiss F9C-2 fighters, but that was during 1933-35; I've heard remarks made somewhere about the Germans at least being interested in the idea of operating planes from Zeppelins during WWI, but if it even got so far as a paper sketch, or even if it's true, I have no idea.

Well, I'm more knowledgable about between-wars and WWII era aircraft... the WWI era is not one I'm fully conversant about. That, and the household airship authority is still snoring away right now, so I don't really want to wake him up and ask him. You're right though - I'm probably confusing the 30's with the WWI time period. Hey, I can't know everything....

Oh really? I'll have to see.... Frank, perhaps you'd like to come play in my sandbox some weekend...?
*squeals excitedly*
I'd love to; my experience in anything other than a big, sedate airliner is limited to a ride up to 10,000 feet in a beat-up old Cessna to go skydiving out of...once

It's that old saw about "why would you jump out of a perfectly good airplane?...." Which I wholeheartedly agree with. However, I've seen jump planes. I don't think I'd have a problem stepping out of one, although I might protest being forced aboard.

I wish I had the money for hundreds-of-miles cross country flights, but I don't. However, if you ever get to the Chicago area budget some time and I steer you to where you can get a genuine flight in a biplane, and maybe even get the take the controls for a bit. It's not a WWI airplane, but it's open cockpit, loud, and all the rest and will give you a much deeper appreciation for the early pioneers. Dress warm and bring eye protection.

Cleaning aircraft as soon as possible after returning from a mission was an activity that ground crews definitely performed, in my opinion they're just way too caked with filth.

I'll just have to see, then.

Given the propensity of the WWI era engines to throw oil this would only be worse.
This raises an idea I had that the makers of the film could have earned points with among toilet humor afficionados had they shown it; rotary engines famously used castor oil as a lubricant.

Castor oil is a powerful laxative, so powerful in fact that Mussolini's Italy used it as an interrogation tool.

The latrine was the first stop for many WWI pilots on landing, and I'd imagine more than few got there too late.

Given what and how they were flying, I'm sure it wasn't just the castor oil at work

Definitely one of the unglamorous aspects of flight, that whole bodily waste thing. I could tell you stories.... let me just say that airsickness bags will hold more than puke, OK?

Castor oil is still used in the rotary engines that are out there. And in model radio control airplanes.

True, that, but part of my objection to them is that in the popular mind there were two aircraft during WWI; an all-red Triplane and a certain beagle's flying doghouse.

As long as they aren't showing the doghouse....

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-24 03:36pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Seeing that this is the first real WWI airwar movie since The Blue Max, I'm inclined to give it half a chance. I'm hoping they didn't depict all the German planes in red, however. Nothing was more colourful in that war than the squadron/camoflague schemes on those machines. Some of which almost seemed to evoke medieval heraldry.

If this fails, totally, it will probably be another 40 years before another WWI aviation flick is made, and I'll be dead by then.

The Blue Max played pretty fast and loose with German color schemes, the Pfalz D.IIIs that carried lozenge camoflage could be counted on the fingers of one hand, and they only carried it on the lower wings, and no Dr.I carried lozenge, ever.

Considering that the director, when he saw the lozenge for the first time, loved it so much he wanted all the planes in the film, both allied and German to be covered in it, we should count ourselves lucky....

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-24 09:54pm

Well, I saw it. I enjoyed it very much. Want more! Makes me want to run out to the airport and fly right now...

FSTargetDrone wrote:Are the aircraft behaving as they should? That is, are they too fast or do you get a sense of realistic speed and aerobatic realism?

For the most part yes. Frank's comment about proper control inputs for the manuvers is spot on. I think in a few of the mid-air structural failures they have the airplane spiraling in the wrong direction, but I'm not entirely sure on that. By that point I was so involved in the film my analytical brain lobe was mostly off-line. The tail-slides followed by a hard rudder to hammerhead stick in my mind - everybody ran out of "up" at the same time and had to get back to flying again before they resumed fighting. More realistic than some of the seemingly endless climbs. Airplanes in that weight/power range need to dive to build up sufficient speed to successfully carry them through a loop, they can't do it starting from straight and level.

The got a lot of the little details right - on the ground you have the guys hanging over the sides of the cockpit and making S-turns to see where they're going. There are vibrations when they shoot. And Frank - that "filth" and "crud" looked like normal operational dirt to me for ragwings operating off grass/dirt and throwing some oil. I've got a picture around here of Stearman windshield that had been cleaned off just before flight but while underway clearly shows oil and grit, and that from an engine far less prone to spitting than what was in the WWI era. Granted, the ground crews would have been cleaning that off daily, as much as possible (and I've cleaned my share of airplanes), but I think it would have spoiled the look of the film if they had been too clean.

Some other details they got right included that initial off-field landing (yup, been there, done that, although not for the same reason they did). They captured that coming in low and vegetation thrashing around quite nicely. I like things like "If you're about to crash, take your goggles off - the glass can cut your eye". If they explained the looking around for enemy aircraft I sort of wish they had explained the need to S-turn on the ground (because you can't see where the hell you're going on the ground).

And Frank - did you catch those early, low-tech "flight simulators" they were using?

Frank Hipper wrote:There's some ground attack bits that are awfully questionable, as well as some extreme low-altitude manouvers that would require skill beyond, far beyond that of most pilots (possibly excepting Ernst Udet)...but I guess you could assume luck is what's being depicted and be fair in that assumption.

Some of the very low altitude manuvers reminded me of crop-dusting. To that extent they're possible, but would be damned dangerous. On the other hand, they were in a shooting war, and many of those guys survived on luck as much as skill. I am not an authority on dog-fighting, but I have flown airplanes in the weight and power range of the Nieuports (the Citabria I did my tailwheel training, for example - except the Citabria is more advanced and sophisticated than the Nieuport in many ways). The movie planes seemed to hang in extreme banks and knife-edge longer than I think would be possible in real life. Attempting to dodge trees at less than tree-top height with a bank angle over 45 degrees verges on the suicidal. But I'll cut them slack because it made for some cheap thrills and I was entertained.

A positive note on accuracy; the ground sets in particular are exceptionally good.
Equipment, tents, vehicles, 1916 Paris; all of it is extremely accurate and/or convincing.

I'll second that. It looked like France. They clearly went to some effort to capture the look of the period.

I'm also glad I paid attention in French class. I've heard some grumbling about how easily Lucienne learned English, but having the two of them continuing to stagger along in Franglish would have detracted from the movie. I thought they have enough of Rawlings stumbling in French to show he was trying to meet her halfway. Subtitles were supplied for the French when really necessary, but I'm kind of glad they didn't do so for every little exchange. Was kind of weird, though, that I could understand both sides of a conversation when the two principals couldn't.

Patrick Degan wrote:I'm inclined to give it half a chance. I'm hoping they didn't depict all the German planes in red, however.

Nope. Not ALL of them. The "Black Falcon" was - surprise! - black.

I had some quibbles about the flying at night. It's certainly possible to fly an unlighted airplane after dark, even land it IF you had something like full moonlight, but it would have been dangerous and scary as hell. I wish they had played that up a little more.

The zepplin scene -- well, zepplin bombings were always night operations, and at altitudes higher than airplanes could fly. And as Frank pointed out, they never had fighter escorts. But it made for a very dramatic scene, real eye-candy.

There was a scene with someone pinned under an airplane wing - I won't give more details, I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet - but I was wondering why the hell they were having so much trouble getting it off. Airplane wings aren't that heavy. They're made of fucking wood and thin cotton cloth, c'mon, they couldn't chop through that? Well, OK, how the guy is hung up is ambiguous.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-24 11:16pm

Broomstick wrote:Well, I saw it. I enjoyed it very much. Want more! Makes me want to run out to the airport and fly right now...

I know how you feel. I'm always playing Red Baron 3D, but it's been an especially busy weekend for ye olde M drive.

FSTargetDrone wrote:Are the aircraft behaving as they should? That is, are they too fast or do you get a sense of realistic speed and aerobatic realism?
For the most part yes. Frank's comment about proper control inputs for the manuvers is spot on.

Cool, having someone with RW knowledge verify you is..a warm tingly kinda thing.

By that point I was so involved in the film my analytical brain lobe was mostly off-line.

HA! I wasn't the only one!

The tail-slides followed by a hard rudder to hammerhead stick in my mind - everybody ran out of "up" at the same time and had to get back to flying again before they resumed fighting. More realistic than some of the seemingly endless climbs. Airplanes in that weight/power range need to dive to build up sufficient speed to successfully carry them through a loop, they can't do it starting from straight and level.

Something more on the film's manouvering depictions; what did you think of that stall of Cassidy's during the Zeppelin scene?

The got a lot of the little details right - on the ground you have the guys hanging over the sides of the cockpit and making S-turns to see where they're going. There are vibrations when they shoot.

Trivial note; James Franco got his pilot's license just before filming started, and they let him solo taxi a Nieuport for real, unlike the other actors who appear to be operating aircraft via film, err, magic.

And Frank - that "filth" and "crud" looked like normal operational dirt to me for ragwings operating off grass/dirt and throwing some oil. I've got a picture around here of Stearman windshield that had been cleaned off just before flight but while underway clearly shows oil and grit, and that from an engine far less prone to spitting than what was in the WWI era. Granted, the ground crews would have been cleaning that off daily, as much as possible (and I've cleaned my share of airplanes), but I think it would have spoiled the look of the film if they had been too clean.

Conceded, happily.
Besides, I'm looking at a photo of a Fokker E.III taking off at this very moment, and it looks absolutely sticky with filth.

And Frank - did you catch those early, low-tech "flight simulators" they were using?

Sure 'nuff, something else that's about as accurate as it gets.

Some of the very low altitude manuvers reminded me of crop-dusting.

Ahh! Good point, I've watched enough crop-dusting in Arizona that I should have thought of that.
I've seen lunatics crop-dusting at night, even!

To that extent they're possible, but would be damned dangerous. On the other hand, they were in a shooting war, and many of those guys survived on luck as much as skill. I am not an authority on dog-fighting, but I have flown airplanes in the weight and power range of the Nieuports (the Citabria I did my tailwheel training, for example - except the Citabria is more advanced and sophisticated than the Nieuport in many ways). The movie planes seemed to hang in extreme banks and knife-edge longer than I think would be possible in real life. Attempting to dodge trees at less than tree-top height with a bank angle over 45 degrees verges on the suicidal. But I'll cut them slack because it made for some cheap thrills and I was entertained.

Again with the RB3D flight-sim bit, I've pulled off some pretty slick shit in ground attack missions, and just kissing the ground in that game can cause you to crash, but...well, you know.

I'll second that. It looked like France. They clearly went to some effort to capture the look of the period.

The urinal, I'm still giggling.

I'm also glad I paid attention in French class. I've heard some grumbling about how easily Lucienne learned English, but having the two of them continuing to stagger along in Franglish would have detracted from the movie.

I personally think the language criticisims aren't very fair; I picked up enough Spanish while working with Mexican co-workers to make simple things understood within a few hours, I think having Rawlings learn as much as he did is a credit to the film makers. Bi-lingualism isn't historically a Hollywood strong point, after all.

Patrick Degan wrote:I'm inclined to give it half a chance. I'm hoping they didn't depict all the German planes in red, however.
Nope. Not ALL of them. The "Black Falcon" was - surprise! - black.

If I was the ghost of Josef Jacobs, I'd be beating somebody with a stick over that character having that color scheme, however.

I had some quibbles about the flying at night. It's certainly possible to fly an unlighted airplane after dark, even land it IF you had something like full moonlight, but it would have been dangerous and scary as hell. I wish they had played that up a little more.

You got that right.
Night flying was performed often during the war, and as far as German bomber squadrons are concerned, landing at night claimed more lives and aircraft than enemy action.

The zepplin scene -- well, zepplin bombings were always night operations, and at altitudes higher than airplanes could fly. And as Frank pointed out, they never had fighter escorts. But it made for a very dramatic scene, real eye-candy.

As for fighters intercepting Zeppelins in daylight, previously quoted WWI aviation author Greg VanWyngarden posted this at Aerodrome Forums:

Hi All,

Some commentators on other sites, in criticizing "Flyboys", have commented how unlikely it is that a Zeppelin would be making a daylight raid over the Western Front circa 1916-17, and being attacked by a squadron of Nieuports. I agree that that scene, visually exhilarating and exciting, is a bit far-fetched (especially the Zepp being escorted by a Jasta of red Triplanes - but it looks cool). However, there IS a historical precedent (though it didn't involve N.124)...

On the night of 19-20 October 1917, The German Navy launched 11 airships in what would be the last great Zepp raid of WWI. Nearly all the Zepps became lost in a high-altitude gale, and a spectacular catastrophe resulted - five out of the 11 failed to return.

Dawn of the 20th found the L 44 hopelessly lost in its attempt to return home, and over Lorraine 40 miles inside the French lines. As it tried to climb to 19,000 feet, French anti-aircraft guns opened up and the Zeppelin fell in flames.

The demise of L 44 was witnessed by the distraught crew of Zeppelin L 49, which had only 2 engines still running. Hopelessly lost, with a crew suffering from altitude sickness, the commander, Kapitanltn. Gayer, brought the ship down to 6500 feet to get himself oriented (he thought he was over Holland).

Unfortunately for Gayer, he was over the Western Front. Shortly after 6:00 AM Lt. Lefevre of Escadrille N.152 ("The Crocodiles") received a message reporting that a Zeppelin had been sighted over Espinal, going north.He immediately sent Lt. Lefargue to take his Nieuport up above the low and thick bank of fog with hid the sky from view. Lefargue returned at 6:45 and reported that the fog was thick up to 800 meters, but the sky was clear above that and he had sighted two Zepps.

Immediately five Nieuports, including those of Lt Lefargue and Lefevre, scrambled to intercept the Zepps (not unlike the scene in Flyboys). When the patrol reached 5300 meters, they found themselves higher than the Zepps, and attacked the L 49 at 08.30 hrs. The L 49 headed down, and the Nieuports followed but held their fire as long as the ship was descending. Whenever the Zepp tried to ascend, the Nieuports would buzz in and fire at her side. Eventually at 1,000 meters (according to Lefevre) the Zepp hoisted the white flag. Gayer brought the L 49 down near Bourbonne-les-Bains. The entire crew survived and stumbled out of the gondolas. Gayer attempted to set his ship on fire but failed before he was taken prisoner. The Zepp broke its back across a hill, and became the subject of numerous photos and even (I think) some movie footage. Lefevre landed nearby and Gayer surrendered himself and his crew to the French commander.

One member of N.152, Cpl. Denis, also attacked the L 50 but was reportedly caught under the violent fire of their defensive guns and forced to retreat. Nonetheless, the commander of L 50 was convinced he could not return to Germany with only 3 functioning engines. He deliberately dove his Zepp into the ground at Dammartin, trying to destroy it. The forward gondola was torn off, and sixteen of the Zepp's crew landed in the gondola or jumped safely to the ground. The battered hulk of the L 50 sailed off into the wind with four crewmen still aboard. It drifted southward, and was lost by following French fighters over the Mediterranean. It was never seen again.

While not as dramatic as the end of the Zepp in "Flyboys", the fate of L 49 at least shows that the spectacle of a Zeppelin being harassed by French Nieuports in daylight is not as far-fetched as it might seem (I always thought it would make a great painting - Russ?). However, despite dramatic episodes in both "Hell's Angels" and "Flyboys", there is no record of any Allied pilot ever diving his aeroplane kamikaze-style into a Zeppelin!

Greg VanWyngarden

And...there it is.

I've been hearing mixed reports on attendance; like I said, if this one fails there probably won't be a major WWI film made until after I've croaked...

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2006-09-25 12:01am

Went and saw it tonight based on the reccomendations I saw here. A goodtime was had and I certainly have no regrets about spending my money.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-25 06:34am

Frank Hipper wrote:Something more on the film's manouvering depictions; what did you think of that stall of Cassidy's during the Zeppelin scene?

The stall is just fine - that and the rudder-over to turn around and dive downward. The flaws are that
1) he started that climb from straight and level
2) the vertical climb sequence would have been impossible for that airplane. It would have stalled at a 25 degree angle at most even at full power, and probably more like 20 or 22. A brief dive to build up speed would have enabled a pilot to build up the momentum sufficient to get more vertical movement than otherwise (as I said, that's how you loop something like that) but not sustained as long as in the film
3) I question if a mortally wounded man would have had the physical strength and ability to pull that off - there's no power steering on those airplanes. You want to manuver like that you have to pull HARD on those controls. I read an excerpt from an article that stated that the men who were flying the replicas for this movie would come down after about 2 hours shaking and exhausted from the effort.

On the other hand, it looked totally cool on screen.

Some of the very low altitude manuvers reminded me of crop-dusting.
Ahh! Good point, I've watched enough crop-dusting in Arizona that I should have thought of that.
I've seen lunatics crop-dusting at night, even!

Yes, but the old biplane crop dusters have 2 to 4 times the horsepower of a Nieuport, which lets them do things no Nieuport ever could.

Again with the RB3D flight-sim bit, I've pulled off some pretty slick shit in ground attack missions, and just kissing the ground in that game can cause you to crash, but...well, you know.

Uh, yeah - I've seen what happens when an airplane "kisses the ground" in real life. Much more spectacular than the simulators show.

I'll second that. It looked like France. They clearly went to some effort to capture the look of the period.
The urinal, I'm still giggling.

You could still see those in obscure, older parts of Paris when I was there in the 1980's.

Night flying was performed often during the war, and as far as German bomber squadrons are concerned, landing at night claimed more lives and aircraft than enemy action.

Back in flight training I had to do some night flying, and that included some in the dark - i.e. no landing light, no runway light. Funny, we did those on nights with a full moon, and where the ambient light from buildings and such provided some additional illumination. We didn't try it out in the boondocks and cornfields.

I've been hearing mixed reports on attendance; like I said, if this one fails there probably won't be a major WWI film made until after I've croaked...

A lot of critics seem to have panned it. They just don't get it - this is a greatly entertaining film where the action is the attraction more than the rather stock story.

If it gets good word of mouth it will have legs. The pilots seem to like it (with a few grumbling curmudgeons, as usual). Whether anyone else does remains to be seen.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-25 10:34am

Broomstick wrote: That's true about the zepps and escorts? I did not know that. I know that there had been experiments involving combining zepps and fixed wings in some operations, and at one point the US had an airship designed to carry airplanes aboard, launch, and even retrieve them. Fascinating stuff, really, but I think sometimes the line blurs between what was put on paper and what actually was done.

Broomstick, you may find this of interest:

USS Macon (ZRS-5) was a rigid frame airship built and operated by the United States Navy for scouting. In service for less than two years, in 1935 Macon was damaged in a storm and lost off the coast of California.

She was built in Akron, Ohio by the Goodyear-Zeppelin Corporation, christened on March 11, 1933 by Jeanette Whitton Moffett (wife of Rear Admiral William A. Moffett), and first flew one month later, only a few weeks after the tragic loss of her sister ship Akron (ZRS-4). Macon was commissioned on June 23, 1933 with Commander Alger H. Dresel in command.

The Macon had 12 helium-filled gas cells made from gelatine-latex fabric. Designed to carry five F9C Sparrowhawk biplanes, Macon received her first aircraft on board July 6, 1933 during trial flights out of Lakehurst, New Jersey. The planes were stored in bays inside the hull and were launched and retrieved using a trapeze. Departing the east coast October 12, 1933, Macon's homefield became NAS Sunnyvale (now Moffett Federal Airfield).

On February 12, 1935 when a repair process was still incomplete, Macon, returning to Sunnyvale from fleet maneuvers, ran into a storm off Point Sur, California. During the storm, she was caught in a sudden updraft which caused structural failure of her unstrengthened upper tail fin. Trailing cables punctured the rear gas cells and the resulting gas leakage prompted a discharge of ballast. Control was lost and, tail heavy and with engines running, the Macon rose past the pressure height and kept going until enough helium was vented to cancel the lift. It took her 20 minutes to descend from 4,850 ft and, settling gently to the sea, Macon sank off the California coast. Only two crewmembers from her complement of 76 died, thanks to the warm conditions and the introduction of life jackets and inflatable rafts.

"I think those dirigibles were probably the most stunning thing you could probably see back in the '30s," said Christopher Grech, who has researched the Macon for 20 years as part of his job at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California.

Today all that remains of the Macon and the four warplanes carried in its massive belly are ruins scattered on the seafloor- a historic site that is being intensively explored for the first time in a five-day expedition that started Sunday.

The expedition is expected to last five days.

Researchers are using a remote underwater vessel called the Western Flyer to record videotape of the wreckage. Those pictures will be used to recreate the debris field.

Noah Doughty, a biology teacher at Mission College Prep High School in San Luis Obispo, will participate in an expedition to digitally photograph the crash site of the USS Macon, a Navy dirigible, off Point Sur, about 20 miles south of Carmel on Highway 1.
"This is such an amazing opportunity," Doughty said. "It'll definitely provide me with experience I can use to enhance all of my classes for years to come."

Throughout the expedition, Tiburon, a remotely operated vehicle, will plunge into the ocean and take high-resolution digital photographs of the crash site. The still images will then be used to create a photo mosaic.

Roust, a biologist who works in the San Simeon office of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary program, will collect information when Tiburon surfaces periodically.

And Frank Hipper:

I know how you feel. I'm always playing Red Baron 3D, but it's been an especially busy weekend for ye olde M drive. Very Happy

These screens are from around 1999. I started RB3D before the Superpatch, flying with the Flying Squirrel Air Froce in 1997.

The FSAF (was) is the 94th Composite Group that used to fly RB3D as the 415th Fighter Squadron, and Air Warrior III and WarBirds. Our colors were mauve and green as you can see from the totally inaccurate color schemes.

Sadly, I haven't been able to get RB3D running on any of my newer computers. The last one it ran properly on has long since died of old age, but some day I intend to get back in the air.

<S!> Fellow Squirrels, wherever you are!