I posted some pic’s of the Stuka before, but here’s a new batch. The first scheme is totally ficticious and was put on for a film (I don’t know which one). The bomb release and dive brakes are wooden mock ups and the bomb is fibreglass. She needed a lot of anti corrosion work, so had to be stripped of this scheme. The decision was made to revert her to an original tank busting scheme. The snag was that no one had photographed or recorded the original scheme. The colours she is in now is a “best guess” using as close a colour match as we could come up with using RAF polyurethan paint! If you look outboard of the main undercarriage legs you can see the 5 cannon mounting brackets. Unfortunately the guns were removed around 1945/46 and have long since disappeared.
KeithMac
Attachments:
By: SADSACK - 2nd December 2002 at 12:00
RE: Stuka!
Enemy at the Gates wasnt US funded. It was joint British French and German money. Subsequently it was probably made for under £15 million. Compare that to Pearl Harbours £140 million!
By: Tom_W - 28th November 2002 at 21:54
RE: Stuka!
It’s seen from the ground or should I say water? as the infantry in boats are being attacked while crossing the river. The camerawork is in the now trendy ‘shaky’ style and they don’t look as convincing as a real flyer would, bet they wish the russian bloke with the scale Stuka was around when they made it. The Ju88s weren’t exactly great either, the formations were a bit too uniform for my liking but I imagine that there was a limited budget so they probably have a valid excuse, don’t think they had a ‘Pearl Harbor’ budget 😉
Tom 😉
By: Seafuryfan - 27th November 2002 at 21:11
RE: Stuka!
Hav’nt seen it Munst – is there any action from in cockpit, or following the aircraft, or is it seen as viewed from the ground?
By: munnst - 25th November 2002 at 08:34
RE: Stuka!
Enemy at the gates has some good Stuka action.
By: Moggy C - 25th November 2002 at 00:24
RE: Stuka!
No.
The look of them was fine, but the movement was all wrong.
Still, Maggie Harvey made up for them. 😉
Moggy
By: Seafuryfan - 24th November 2002 at 22:45
RE: Stuka!
I dunno about that, Moggy, i’ve always thought the Stukas were reasonably convincing. Sure, you can tell at the end of the day that they are models, but it beats many other aviation films of the period….Perhaps we are getting used to the superb SFX in todays films, but that’s another subject!
“………..STUKAS!”
By: Moggy C - 24th November 2002 at 10:43
RE: Stuka!
And of course there was the legendary ‘Proctukas’
Some poor old Percival Proctors heavily modded to represent Stukas in the BoB film. After they had tried the first one nobody wanted to fly them so the idea was scrubbed and we ended up with the tacky and somewhat unconvincing r/c models that finally appeared in the movie.
Moggy
By: Ant.H - 23rd November 2002 at 20:48
RE: Stuka!
Cheers KiethMac,crackin’ piccies once again. 🙂 I think the film the fictitious paintjob was applied for may well have been Battle Of Britain.There was some talk of using both the Ju88R and this Stuka in some static and/or taxying scenes,but for whatever reason,these scenes were left on the storyboard.
Does anyone know how the RAF/MoD actually got hold of this aircraft?I’ve heard that she was captured by the Russians at a modification/repair depot,so how did she end up migrating West?
By: EHVB - 23rd November 2002 at 18:45
RE: Stuka!
If only one day one of these could be seen in the airshow circuit!
By: Bluebird Mike - 23rd November 2002 at 15:58
RE: Stuka!
Great pics! And by ‘eck, that’s what you call a prop!!!
Sign In
November 23, 2002 at 3:35 pm