'Dunkirk' film beach landing by Spitfire

No doubt to prevent the airframe and British broom stick technology being captured by the Germans.

Yes, the secret broom-stick post-fuel-exhaustion gliding technology must not fall into enemy hands!!!

Yes, I’d agree, a large (full?) scale model is definitely the way to go if a belly-landing is demanded by the story.

Overall, I was a little under-impressed with the flying sequences in ‘Dunkirk’ but the one aspect that really did impress me was how effective the scale He-111 appeared on screen. (And most of the model He-111 crash scenes impress me in the ‘Battle of Britain’ movie too.)

I’ve always wondered just how technically demanding it would be to build a full-scale flying Stuka, for example, and then just take up a Spitfire with live ammunition (and high speed, high definition cameras) and just shoot the Stuka down into the sea?

In filmmaking, if you’re going to use a real Spitfire, a real beach, and you’re really going to land it, then a belly-landing is absolutely out if the question.

True, but you can always use a large scale model and some digital editing techniques instead….

https://youtu.be/RGrE6jkm-zM?t=1m58s

As these beach crashes deteriorated over time, tide and pilot destruction it is not easy to link various images I have that made wheels down beach landings.

Two nominations for the identity are N3295 and N3103…but I emphasise that I have not researched them.

Mark

Is there any information on which Spitfire this is Mark 12?. I am guessing that it is a 54 Squadron Spitfire because of the Rotol Prop and spinner that is on this one.

“…subsequently destroyed by the pilot.”
No doubt to prevent the airframe and British broom stick technology being captured by the Germans. 🙂

In the Korean war beach landings wheels down during combat sorties took place many times and became part of the diversion airstrip pre flight briefings. Recoveries to fly again after refuel /repair happened as aresult.

There were 2-3 instances where damaged Spitfires landed on French beaches during the evacuation with their undercarriage down and were subsequently destroyed by the pilot. So the film gives a relatively realistic portrayal of such an event in my opinion.

I agree, plenty of real aircraft have been destroyed for movies but I doubt a real World War Two combat aircraft has been destroyed for a movie for about fifty years…

…and I can only think of one (a B-17) that was actually crash-landed for a movie!

‘If the money is there’ of course a filmmaker would make a realistic scenario out of a wheels-up landing (if the story required it) but you can be damned sure no moviemaker, in 2018, is going to do a real wheels-up landing with a real Spitfire!

I’m not sure I’d use the word ‘representative’ to describe a wheels-down landing on an enemy-held beach although I cannot disagree that it happened a few times…

…one factor in a wheels-up landing, apart from the safety of the pilot, is surely the wish by the pilot not to hand the enemy an undamaged example of his aircraft?

Even in ‘Dunkirk’ the pilot burns his aircraft as soon as he has landed it!

Plenty of real a/c have been crash landed in movies. The 633 sqn movie wrecked a couple of serviceable mossies.
If the money is there they will make a realistic scenario out of a wheels up Landing.
I’d say there were sufficient wheels down forced landings to make the Dunkirk movie scene representative of real life occurrences. Using a mk 1 BoB survivor as the movie a/c is only likely to result in a wheels down scene.
Therefore I think we agree, albeit from a slightly different perspective

We’ve all seen photos of various types wheels up on beaches.
Sure, that all could have had uc damage, but wheels up landings seem to be more prevalent in period photos.

Any one have a Spitfire pilot’s handbook at hand?
Does it address it?
How about other fighter types?

No, I’m saying that if you’re making a film and you want to land a real Spitfire on a real beach then you’re going to have to do a wheels-down landing; sorry if that wasn’t clear.

As for the combat pilots of World War Two, of those that put their aircraft down on a beach, how many chose to do a wheels-down landing? I’d suggest they were in the minority.

Creaking Door. Are you saying that the whole scenario of landing a real spitfire on a real beach was just done for cinematic effect?
Were the combat pilots that did in fact land their disabled a/c on a beach as a result of combat operations doing so under the direction of movie director?

Nope. That whole scenario was quite unlikely…

To be fair, ‘the whole scenario’ had more to do with providing a cinematic spectacle that demonstrating the correct, or likely, course of action in a combat and / or emergency-landing situation!

In filmmaking, if you’re going to use a real Spitfire, a real beach, and you’re really going to land it, then a belly-landing is absolutely out if the question.

This is the paragraph just after I cropped it. It addresses the stability question of wide vs. narrow undercarriage and position relative to the CoG.

Each of the Harvard, Mustang and Bearcat have wide undercarriages, and all have locking tailwheels, as their undercarriages are well forward of the C of G. The Hurricane also has a wide undercarriage, but it is not too far forward, and therefore it is relatively stable in yaw, but not as stable as the Spitfire. On the other hand, maximum brake can be used on the Hurricane without fear of nose-over, which is not the case with the Spitfire. The Me109 has a narrow undercarriage that is well forward, but it is the forward part that is most damaging. I hear that it wrote off more aircraft/pilots in landing accidents than in combat.

I don’t know about landing a Spitfire on sand (wet sand) but I can’t think of many ‘unmade’ surfaces that I’ve driven on that have given me more confidence; the next closest ‘unmade’ surface is probably snow!

The ‘right’ beach surface was for years used in land-speed record attempts and wet sand has much to recommend it: it is (usually) flat, it has (very) low friction, has excellent load bearing properties (depending on ground-pressure) and tends to resist ‘digging-in’ as it lacks cohesion.

I think I’m right in saying that the track of a Bf-109 is wider than the track of the Spitfire!

My comment wasn’t about the ease of landing the Spitfire, it was about the advisability of landing one on a beach, especially one not inspected or prepared beforehand as would have been the case in combat.

The track might be “…the least important aspect…” of landing gear geometry, but as thousands of Bf 109 pilots (a type where it is said more aircraft were wrecked on landing than combat) could attest it’s still important, especially for off-airfield landings where one might encounter dips, holes or soft spots. A narrow track would make any aircraft more susceptible to digging a wing or nicking the prop regardless of CG or tailwheel.

I’d rather do such a thing in a Hurricane, P-40, or Thunderbolt than a narrow track type. Of course, I’m no warbird fighter pilot.

Nope. That whole scenario was quite unlikely.

The one thing you as a pilot do not want to have happen during a forced-landing is to nose-over, and be trapped upside-down in the fuselage. In sand. On a beach. With a rising tide. And the enemy across the street.

And that is far more likely if you attempt a gear-down landing. So, the advice was, and is, belly it in.

We’ve all seen flights operating from packed sand. Just north of where I’m typing this now a DH84 took off from Wasaga Beach in 1934 and made it to London. But it requires prior knowledge. You need someone to evaluate it and tell you the conditions, or you need to look down and see heavy vehicles driving on it. If that’s happening, then sure, put the gear down.

But otherwise, gear-up.

Mind you, that Spitfire appeared to glide for 10 minutes, and shot down half the Luftwaffe while doing so. I’m surprised it didn’t soar over to Manston. And sink the Scharnhorst along the way 😉