Rolls-Royce built 19 of the ‘R’ racing engines, all clockwise, in Rolls Royce terminology, apart from R17 which turned counter-clockwise. How much re-engineering is required to change the direction of rotation of an engine apart from modified cams, supercharger outlet trunking and ancillaries?

Different crankshaft also.

I believe that he has recorded a commentary for the original film, to be released when the remake is screened, with that film now hanging in the balance, it would be nice to hear his words sooner rather than later; he was for me a true icon.

What a marvellous hidden away project… 😮

20 years work and now we are privy to a few sneak peeks at what amounts to one huge labour of love by the looks of it…. tell your Dad he’s got something really special there, and well done!!!! 😉

I’m sure any further updates will be eagerly awaited…..

Nice – very VERY nice! 😀

To be fair not that “hidden away”, as I posted a picture of it (prior to painting), a couple of years ago; I can also confirm that the attention to detail is impressive.

Mine’s 24″ X 24″ not including backplate; but hey size ain’t everything right?

Well said Steve, it’s like ramblers who have forced land owners to allow them to roam at will through cropped fields then kick up the poo when they are injured by cattle…….. I often wonder what the reaction would be if a coach load farmers turfed up at their houses and wandered round their gardens walking on their flowerbeds, climbing over their fences and leaving the gates open letting their dogs etc out……….

I like your thinking…..

I quote “Blind drunk & Bu99ered”….. seems petty conslusive I think I can probably talk his associates out of taking action if you were to hand over that handsome Spitfire of yours as compensation ;):diablo: do we have a deal 😀

Sorry not with you, what are you saying r.e preferences? I think you have misconstrued my totally innocent remark, about the evils of drink…..

Thank you agreeing with me, but that really wasn’t my point.

I don’t mind if they do remake it. A bit of colour and popular young stars may bring a few young people into the cinema and expose them to a bit of history.
Even a less than perfect WWII film based on real events (i.e. Pearl Harbour) is a good thing if it teaches young people something or perhaps even turns a few into the next generation of aviation history enthusiasts.
Stated simply, it beats them going to a vampire film (the bloodsuckers, not the de Havilland).

No, what bothers me is the sentiments of some fellow forum members who seem to treat the original film with the reverence formerly applied only to religious topics or the Crown.

Yes, it was a great mission flown by brave pilots, but some of your insistence of treating a commercial film like a holy relic is a bit too extreme.

I do believe there is a reverence, with regard to the original, and I think rightly so; it features several of the all time great actors, it uses real A/C, and it is faithfull to the actual events (notwithstanding the fact that the shape of the mine was wrong, because it’s construction was still top secret).

Lets face it, Guy Gibson (and for that matter Barnes Wallis) wasn’t the life and soul of the party, he was a serious profesional, why portray him in a gung-ho way, just to sell a film, use your imagination, and come up with something original, that you can CGI the hell out of; Dam Busters is probably too English to appeal world wide,(US) whereas us Brits just love another Yank winning the war for us again.

Quite possibly although I would tread carefully around Ronnie’s alleged preferences I believe remarks of that nature got Cornell shot.:diablo:

Indeed, although it has to be noted that it was you that made the connection, between my remark, and any persons living (or dead); I was thinking more about the pub name…..