Wellington Bomber

Yes, but only because Cameron did a superb job of it. I don’t know how many Titanic films flopped between “A Night to Remember” and “Titanic” but there were quite a few. I think one was actually released the same year as Cameron’s.

There were a handful (three, I think, and only one of those was a big-screen offering – Cameron’s (not counting, of course, Raise the Titanic!)).

The main storyline itself, that of a love affair across class divide, could be adapted to any film, but the drama and spectacle of the sinking of the most famous ocean liner of all time, coupled with characters that could very well have existed in one form or another (there was indeed a J. Dawson on the ship), a plausible love affair and blinding special effects were what made the film what it is.

Well, so was Augsburg and they even did it in daylight. But they didn’t have a bouncing bomb on this attack and this was one of the factors that makes “Chastise” fascinating.

But I still believe if Cameron can make “Titanic” so big, then any similar Hollywood director could do anything about a major significant Bomber Command air-raid and make it work. Like what was said in the making of BoB: The Drama is there!

Peter

The drama is there, but it’s getting it into a script that’s the hard part! I mean, let’s face it, WE, as aviation enthusiasts, would appreciate the scenes of bomber crews going down in their aluminium coffins, the Luftwaffe tearing into the formations and the Little Friends doing their best to fend them off, but the average cinema-goer, Mr John Smith and his family of Smiths, would be bored of seeing umpteen B-17s etc going down in flames….

Just my opinion, of course…

The story of the sinking of the Titanic is as much legend as it is fact. The film itself caught the public’s imagination –

Yes, but only because Cameron did a superb job of it. I don’t know how many Titanic films flopped between “A Night to Remember” and “Titanic” but there were quite a few. I think one was actually released the same year as Cameron’s.

precisely the same reason why the original Dam Busters film did so well. All that derring-do, flying 60ft over hundreds of miles of enemy-held territory, at night no less, into the very heart of Germany on what was probably regarded (quite rightly) as a suicide mission…

Well, so was Augsburg and they even did it in daylight. But they didn’t have a bouncing bomb on this attack and this was one of the factors that makes “Chastise” fascinating.

But I still believe if Cameron can make “Titanic” so big, then any similar Hollywood director could do anything about a major significant Bomber Command air-raid and make it work. Like what was said in the making of BoB: The Drama is there!

Peter

I don’t think so; ten years ago the most succressful of all Hollywood movies breached all records and everybody knew how the film was going to end even before they saw it: the ship was going to sink! And here too everybody said the film would flop but it didn’t. I’m sure pros like Jackson could turn a subject like the thousand bomber raid into a blockbuster.

Peter

The story of the sinking of the Titanic is as much legend as it is fact. The film itself caught the public’s imagination – precisely the same reason why the original Dam Busters film did so well. All that derring-do, flying 60ft over hundreds of miles of enemy-held territory, at night no less, into the very heart of Germany on what was probably regarded (quite rightly) as a suicide mission…

Sounds like a plot for another film, n’est-ce pas? Maybe I’ll send the idea to George Lucas. Oh no, wait, he did that already… 😉

I I’m sure pros like Jackson could turn a subject like the thousand bomber raid into a blockbuster.

Peter

It would be an even bigger hit if Jackson could put trolls and elves into the Lancs.

We know 614 Squadron and an international roster…any way of adding a few trolls & elves?:rolleyes:

Because it would probably flop since 99% of people wouldn’t go and see it. Or wouldn’t care about the story or the aircraft depicted in it.

I don’t think so; ten years ago the most succressful of all Hollywood movies breached all records and everybody knew how the film was going to end even before they saw it: the ship was going to sink! And here too everybody said the film would flop but it didn’t. I’m sure pros like Jackson could turn a subject like the thousand bomber raid into a blockbuster.

Peter

Because it would probably flop since 99% of people wouldn’t go and see it. Or wouldn’t care about the story or the aircraft depicted in it.

Why do a remake of Dambusters anyway? It’s been done before and they did a good job of it. Why not do the Augsburg raid or a view of the first thousand bomber raid on Cologne seen from both sides?

My two Euros

Peter

The level of detail that was put into created replicas of the two Helldivers in King Kong plus of course his other aircraft show that Peter Jackson is certainly keen to make the film prop aircraft look right, but I certainly cannot see why Weta or Wingnut would attempt to build a full sized flying Wellington just for a film in which it might be seen in one scene during the bomb testing phases. The film budget would surely never stretch to the creation or restoration of a flying bomber of either sort, Wellington or Lancaster I would think. The eight reported fibreglass Lancasters must have cost a sizeable chunk of the budget as it was. And when you have the best special effects guys working for you, whu bother with the real thing.

One other point, if anyone was attempting to build a full sized flying Wellington, there is probably no way that it would be kept a secret as so many different workshops and areas of the aviation industry would be needed to support such a build or rebuild. So, if it is happening, where, how and why?

I’d love to be proven wrong. It would be nice to see a Wellington replica in NZ to commemorate the thousands of kiwis who flew them in Bomber Command and Coastal Command, as well as the Desert Air Force.

And in the case of a film, time, or lack of it. Generally speaking, films don’t run with the lead time for ‘proper’ (i.e. authentic, accurate) restorations or rebuilds of aircraft like this.

You only have to think how long the Brooklands Wimpy has taken from recovery in 1985 to its present static state.

Moggy

Dragging the thread kicking and screaming back to the original question….

You are no fun, Bruce! 😀

I see no reason whatever that an airworthy Wellington could not be built, using a good proportion of original structure, if parts surviving up and down the country could be secured. Much of it could even come from a single aircraft – L7775. As I recall, the wings for this aircraft are at East Kirkby, and the Tail section at Moreton in Marsh. I dont know if much survived of the fuselage, but again, there are sections surviving which could form a basis.

Tricky bits would be Landing gear, wheels, engines, props – all the usual suspects, but its all do-able.

I’d agree with that.

It just comes down to our old friend……. Money, and lots (and lots) of it!

And in the case of a film, time, or lack of it. Generally speaking, films don’t run with the lead time for ‘proper’ (i.e. authentic, accurate) restorations or rebuilds of aircraft like this. I can’t think of an equivalent restoration (not a mockup) for an aircraft as much a basket case as this for a film. (Even to static, let alone flying.) And as anyone knows who is working on a restoration, it’s a lot faster, easier and often more sensible to build from scratch, rather than trying to use old material.

Just a thought.

Bruce – I doubt the tail section from that Wellington would be usable – I understand it’s been sitting outside on the grass and is quite corroded.

If Peter Jackson wants to build a flying Whitley he just has to give me a call 😀

Dragging the thread kicking and screaming back to the original question….

I see no reason whatever that an airworthy Wellington could not be built, using a good proportion of original structure, if parts surviving up and down the country could be secured. Much of it could even come from a single aircraft – L7775. As I recall, the wings for this aircraft are at East Kirkby, and the Tail section at Moreton in Marsh. I dont know if much survived of the fuselage, but again, there are sections surviving which could form a basis.

Tricky bits would be Landing gear, wheels, engines, props – all the usual suspects, but its all do-able.

It just comes down to our old friend……. Money, and lots (and lots) of it!

Bruce

The Wellington replica discussed here that was made for the Czech film has been detailed before on this old thread and it includes photos:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32467&highlight=czech+wellington

I remember a magazine article years ago about a Wellington mock-up built for a Czech film.

As previously noted, it was the late lamented Air Enthusiast (pre-International), Vol 4 No 2, , February 1973, pages 82-83.
The managing editor was William Green and edited by Gordon Swanborough…unlike magazines of today, it was a “one-stop” product featuring current military, general aviation and commercial news as well as a good dose of historic features.

Yes, the Wellington did look the part with a new structure over the original Li-2 fuselage, reworked nacelles (a nice bit of detail), and shortened undercarriage legs.
The magazine points out the effect was “…spoiled only by the too-low position of the wing”.

The history of the project for those who don’t know –
http://www.couplandbell.com/marg/projects.htm

Work is due to start again shortly on the project, after a brief gap whilst the fuselage was re-housed in a purpose built workshop. The next job I believe is removal of all the concretion in and around the bomb bay. This has to be done carefully with a small hammer, and is very time consuming.

Steve

H steve,

Thanks, i was right about the first and last letter though:)
\\\any info on the progress of that project?

Cheers
Cees

Hmm forward fuselage supplied by Mark Evans(MAM)

Cees

Sorry to correct you Cees, but Mark is MWM (Midland Warplane Museum) not MAM at Coventry

Steve

Hmm forward fuselage supplied by Mark Evans(MAM) and not the least important bit: co-operation (please sir can I have your….)
Oh if only, in Clive du Cross’ book he mentions that he was asked to
build a flyable Wellinton using DC3 wings on a new build fuselage.

Cheers

Cees

Dragging the thread kicking and screaming back to the original question….

I see no reason whatever that an airworthy Wellington could not be built, using a good proportion of original structure, if parts surviving up and down the country could be secured. Much of it could even come from a single aircraft – L7775. As I recall, the wings for this aircraft are at East Kirkby, and the Tail section at Moreton in Marsh. I dont know if much survived of the fuselage, but again, there are sections surviving which could form a basis.

Tricky bits would be Landing gear, wheels, engines, props – all the usual suspects, but its all do-able.

It just comes down to our old friend……. Money, and lots (and lots) of it!

Bruce

IIRC (and I think the story’s in Robert Rudhall’s first book on the film) they fried the electrics trying to get it running. There are accounts that suggested that the engine ran before this happened.

Damn shame. What was that about “a little knowledge…”?

How far did they get with trying to bring it back to life? What was the problem that defeated them in the end? Did they get it running?

IIRC (and I think the story’s in Robert Rudhall’s first book on the film) they fried the electrics trying to get it running. There are accounts that suggested that the engine ran before this happened.