early Beaufighter with original style canopy
The simple answer is that it was believed that both the Defiant and Hurricane attacked the He111 at some point. When I painted the picture many, many years ago it seemed as if the Defiant had delivered the final blow, later research showed that it was almost certainly Stevens.
MP
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”A03845w1000.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3862142}[/ATTACH]
Quite an extensive rebuild it was too! Note the nose section, extreme left of the picture.
Here’s an illustration from our book Dambuster Lancaster which shows how the mechanism worked. Basically the arms were pulled together with a cable which was then attached to a bomb release shackle. When the bomb release was pressed, the cable was released and the arms forced outwards by two compressed springs. The arms didn’t travel far, just enough for a clean drop.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]262305[/ATTACH]
No that’s 5F+CM at Goodwood Home Farm, Chichester on 21st July 1940, the M has been censored in the photo.
Mark P
Looks like a Heinkel 219 to me, which would explain your difficulty in pinning it down to a particular Ju288!
Mark P
Thanks Peter,
So if that flap uses a pneumatic ram then it seems to tally with the description of Mod. 1198. The April 1943 pilot’s notes talk about the carb heat being hydraulically controlled, (as do the MkX notes), so I’m trying to understand how this flap fits in with all that and ultimately whether this was a flap fitted to early Lancasters or whether it was introduced in late 1943. I’ve been trying to find some early Lanc photos of this area but as you can imagine, it’s not the most obvious place to stand when photographing them!
Thanks for the replies so far, I note that the MkX pilot’s notes only refer to two positions, COLD and HOT, which might suggest this three position mod didn’t last long? Anyhow, from an artist’s point of view, can anyone confirm if the light panel indicated in the photo below is a moveable flap and if so, is there any evidence of this flap being fitted to early MkI Lancasters or could this be part of Mod 1198 introduced maybe autumn 1943?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258666[/ATTACH]
“He was flying too low – below 2,000 ft – and he exposed aircraft to icy conditions. Ice will cause the engine to stop working properly. The only other rational explanation is that he just flew into the water because he couldn’t see.
This quote is taken from the author’s text in the article, but as far as I remember from conversations with Roy Nesbit when I painted the scene, the weather was crystal clear over the Channel that day. People just assume that because Glenn Miller took off in poor weather, it persisted for the entire journey, which it didn’t. Roy was an experienced wartime RAF navigator and was very thorough in his investigation into the met and timings etc so in my opinion his theory is much more credible.
Mark P
My first reaction based on the style of the G is 501 Squadron so SD-G.
Mark P
Just went for a second viewing, this time with my 16 year old daughter who absolutely loved it. For me, seeing it for a second time really helped as you know what to expect, what to ignore (weather continuity), and what to savour. The result is simply a great film. I like the fact that you don’t see the German soldiers, (makes them far more menacing), I like that there is no gratuitous blood and gore, (no need), and if Christopher Nolan can inspire interest in a 77 year old military evacuation in today’s 16 year olds then I take my hat off to him on a job very well done. I’d strongly recommend a second viewing, it really does improve it!
Mark P
I think just about everyone I know spotted the broomstick! I just can’t believe that nobody in the production team spotted it as it is one of the most symbolic images of the film and right at the end. As Bazza said, you can overlook most of the technical inaccuracies in the film as it’s not a documentary, but the broomstick will jar your eyes every time you see it. Maybe the director’s cut will quickly paint in an engine…
I noticed quite a few reversed images of Spitfires throughout the film, mainly due to the starboard wing undersurface suddenly becoming black!
I’ve just returned from seeing the film here in Poland and I must say it leaves you very proud to be British, which is rare for a ‘Hollywood’ film these days! I think the answer to all the critics mentioned above is that this is a very narrow look at just a few characters caught up in a huge operation. If the French want more French involvement then I’d politely suggest they make their own film as this does feel like a very British film, telling what happened to the British people involved.
I think my only criticism would be that the film doesn’t convey the size and scale of the evacuation at all. The beaches look empty, we have just three Spitfires tangling with three Luftwaffe aircraft, and even the ships don’t look crowded at all. It’s possibly a result of not using CGI but it looks very low-budget. Oh and the weather continuity is all over the place making some scenes very confusing!
Overall though, I can see why it’s getting the critical acclaim, which can only be good future projects such as the proposed Battle of Britain film.
Mark P
Terrible weather? I think the Royal Navy described the Channel as being ‘like a mill pond’?
Yes, indeed a millpond with visibility down to a few hundred yards in places, low cloud, mist, and the smoke from the oil tank fires making a thick hazy soup above the beaches. Stukas tended to need more than 500ft to dive from so to be more precise, terrible dive bombing weather!