MondarizYou have managed to pin-point a fundamental part of business. You make profit by selling for more than you paid. Even the big oil companies do it 😉
Ebay is no longer a place, where people get rid of their old stuff – fleamarked style.
Its a place where micro-shops try to make a marked. Thats why its flooded with keyrings, coffe mugs, t-shirts, stickers and other rubbish.
There is a large number of films, which are now public domain (due to various reasons). Many of these can be downloaded for free (here is a place for such movies: http://www.publicdomainflicks.com). Micro-shops burn them on DVD and sell them on Ebay ect. Anything that is free and can be shipped, will be offered for sale on Ebay, so check the actual cost before bidding.
There might also be people who are unable to go to HMV, Woolworth, ect. Either due to distance, or maybe they are disabled.
Naturally there are also stupid people abound :p
MondarizYou have managed to pin-point a fundamental part of business. You make profit by selling for more than you paid. Even the big oil companies do it 😉
Ebay is no longer a place, where people get rid of their old stuff – fleamarked style.
Its a place where micro-shops try to make a marked. Thats why its flooded with keyrings, coffe mugs, t-shirts, stickers and other rubbish.
There is a large number of films, which are now public domain (due to various reasons). Many of these can be downloaded for free (here is a place for such movies: http://www.publicdomainflicks.com). Micro-shops burn them on DVD and sell them on Ebay ect. Anything that is free and can be shipped, will be offered for sale on Ebay, so check the actual cost before bidding.
There might also be people who are unable to go to HMV, Woolworth, ect. Either due to distance, or maybe they are disabled.
Naturally there are also stupid people abound :p
MondarizOk, from the top of my head (and in the fantasy spirit og the “pot of gold”).
Starting with an “enlistment” procedure and maybe lodgings in wartime quaters.
1. Reenactment of wartime briefing.
2. Full kit-out before taxi tour.
3. Gunner training (not from Just Jane, but maybe a combination of blanks and computer simulation).
4. Debriefing.
5. Some sort of ball with wartime entertainment.
MondarizI’ll be damned :dev2:
After reading your other East Kirby post and the mention of 3-4 million to get Just Jane airborne – I was thinking exactly this!
Almost started a thread too, but had to go shopping :p
Hmmm, an actual response to this thread must wait, as I have to unpack my shopping 😎
MondarizWhat a great account…
Now I simply have to go.
MondarizReading the site mentioned above i came across this:
http://www.hawkertempest.se/mw376.htm
I think that pretty much sums up the spirit of this thread, as it seem to have been “lost” for a few years, before resurfacing in 2008.
Another place i find interesting is http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/ where you can find Stored aircraft mentioned, some in private storage.
Does anyone know about any “lost” Spitfires?
MondarizStrange choice of aircraft for an American movie, a B-25 or A-26 solid nose jobby would have been more user friendly and allowed non CGI or ground scenes to have been made more cheaply I would have thought.
What about the single engined aircraft following up in the strafing attack, P-40 do you think.
Looks a damn good bash em up movie, a Beaufighter only adds to the fun.
TFC take note, Beaus and P-40’s might now be in constant demand for film work, you may have a good potential earner at DX.
Sorry, but you can’t get anything cheaper and easier than CGI.
Unfortunatly we are now moving away from real aircraft in major movies. Although its nice to see historic aircraft on the big screen, watching a CGI, no matter how good, is just not the same 🙁
MondarizJust a great looking aircraft.
Its fantastic to think, that you can still find such gems on scrap yards…….not the last “bard find” im sure.
MondarizI wonder if what we’re saying and/or recognising is that Richtofen was the epitome of a ‘technical pilot’, in that he used his aircraft in the optimum way to destroy as many enemy aircraft as possible. Flying for the sheer joy of flying was of no interest to him: he was a soldier of the Fatherland, and he had a job to do. Aerobatics, flamboyance and ‘stunting’ did not get the job done.
In short, a professional soldier.
I think you hit the nail there.
Lets wonder if the new movie will show a “calculating” soldier, or a romantic aviator?
MondarizRight… I’m also a little confused by particular posters seeking to call into question Von Richthofens credentials as the best ace of the War.
A cursory examination of his combat career will reveal the following:
He was the top scoring fighter pilot of the war. There is evidence that his actual first 2 kills were not awarded due to the fact that both victims crashed behind Allied lines. One of these claims was when he was an observer handling the defensive MG. And this brings me to the next point. The Baron was a supurb marksman. This is universally acknowledged, yet has not been so far acknowledged here in this thread. Rather, it appears important to some that his aerobatic prowess was not the absolute best, and that this is something of a deficiency! His suburb tactics and marksmanship are quietly played down. He regarded his mount as primarily a platform for his weapons, not an acrobatic mount. This is farsighted, as can be seen by subsequent developments in air warfare. He was not interested in aeobatics, but rather in the “Dicta Boelcke”.
It is interesting that the majority of his victories were gained against a numerically superior enemy flying tecnically superior machines.
Oh, and lastly….. his title of “Freiherr”, translated as “Free Lord” is the German equivalent of a Baron.
Marksmanship with an airplane is exactly the airmanship that seems to be played down here (I have noted it too). You can not be a superb air combat marksman without 100% control over your aircraft, you basically aim with the stick. Naturally there are other factors, such as “prediction”, or rather reading the enemy, so you stay one step ahead.
“Dicta Boelcke”. Does not prevent aerobatics in combat, as the pilot is told to “stay with the attack, once it is begun”. To live by that rule, the pilot must naturally be able to follow his opponent into any aerial movement.
I have read a few books about Richthofen and never come across any doubt about his flying skills, other than mentioning that he never was reckless – the lack of rekclessness is actually a mark of a good pilot, not the other way around.
There might have been better combat pilots, who lost their lives before reaching Richthofens score, but as the highest scoring ace, Richthofen would also have been one of Germanys best combat pilots – there is no way around it.
Mondariz‘Scout’ was the contemporary Allied term for what later became known as fighter – it does not mean reconnaissance. I don’t know what the direct translation of Jagdstaffeln is. Quite honestly the fact that the German Jagdstaffeln were primarily defensive in nature and the tactic of patrolling the lines looking for Allied aircraft that had penetrated their airspace makes use of the term ‘scout’ quite appropriate in my view.
No doubt von Richthofen would have been as successful as e.g. Galland in WWII mainly because early war tactics favoured his style in extremis – the top scoring ‘experten’ effectively went out hunting with their entire squadron covering them.
Ok, I see the Scout idea.
To the Germans they were, as pointed out in another post, hunters (jagd = hunt), which i guess describe the tactics even better.
MondarizI don’t know why posters keep refering to Von Richtofen as a scout pilot, when he clealy was a fighter pilot.
Richtofen flew in Oswald Boelcke Jagdstaffel (fighter squadron), led his own Jasta 11 (also a fighter squadron), he flew mostly in an Albertros model – a fighter not a scout airplane (his other aircraft were also fighters).
Richtofen posessed the qualities, that would have made him an outstanding fighter pilot even in WWII, where aircraft performance allowed for more advanced flying and dog-fighting.
MondarizI’m with others in expressing mild surprise at the suggestion early in this thread that in some way a fighter pilot who doesn’t dog-fight with his opponent, or picks an easier target, is the lesser for it.
I’ve been reading Donald Caldwell’s wonderful JG26 War Diaries and their preference was always the classic; up-sun, single pass then get the hell away, approach to combat. In 41 to 43 (ie. before being swamped by Allied air supremacy) this gave the Geschwader an enviable combat record (working off memory and not 100% sure of the fine print here, but) in the order of 3:1.
Surely that is the point?
I believe Von Richtofen himself once said “You attack from high in the sun, everthing else is rubbish” (from my fading memory):
Gaining that superior position and seeing the enemy first, was the all important factors in WWI air combat.
Von Richtofen, who wrote the book on WWI air combat, was a hunter and took the hunters instinct to the skies, stalking his “prey” untill he had the advantage he needed. Thats not only superior airmanship, its a superior tactical approach.
Von Richtofen was flying to kill, not for some romantic idea of an airborne knights tournament. I’m pretty sure most pilots did the same.
MondarizI find it interesting that the folks who are concerned with the historical accuracy of ‘The Red Baron’ haven’t commented on the fact that he was never actually known by that nickname. The Germans called him The Red Battle Flier, and the Allies referred to him as “the Bloody Red Baron” or the “Jolly Red Baron”.
World war I was not known as world war I either, but it is now, so we use that name.
Earlier this year the Baron name was discussed in another thread, and I think the general concensus was, that Von Richtofen became known as “The Red Baron” shortly after WWI.
Originally he was simply known to Germans as Von Richtofen (pronounced with resepect and awe). Der Rote Kampffliger was the name of his autobiography (the war hero kind, so not 100% historical correct), not a name used when talking about him (and certainly not to him :eek:).
The allied had various nicknames for him during the war years, but post-war “The Red Baron” stuck and even the Germans adapted it eventually, although he wasn’t actually a Baron.
The new film, like any other film, is a financial investment, not a historic aviation document. They are likely to change anything, that will aide to the sale of tickets. Including, naturally, a love interest, and a modern attitude towards war in general. Hopefully it will not be too watered down.
MondarizOk, maybe mentioning an airworthy Stirling was taking it a bit too far :p
I was merely trying to confront the issue of relic vs technology. On a smaller scale this kind of backengineering has been done without damaging the original parts (also outside aviation).
Admittedly its unlikely anyone would ever sponsor such a huge project, so we are naturally talking theoretically.
Imagine if the Merlin engine existed only as relics and various parts. Would it be worth it to risk those parts, in order to create a working Merlin?
I think so.
But remember backengineering is normally a non-destructive process, and done with care could actually aide the survival of original parts, by conserving them inside out (although we might be looking at new rivets ect.).
Sign In
