XN923Agreed.
Most of us like “BoB”…but look at the wrong marks of Spitfires and the “Bf-109s” sporting Merlins. Still few of us would rate the film poorly because they used what they had.
True, and also I think, because they did the absolute best with what they had, such as removing cannon from later Mk Spits, putting three blade props on static later Mk Spits, adding tail struts and clipping wings of Buchons so at least they are better in plan etc. I think you have to look really hard to spot e.g. a MkXIV Spit and in the heat of the action, a MkIX isn’t that easy to distinguish from a V or IIa – eminently acceptable in my book. Even the ‘Hurribuchons’ are OK because they are stuck in the back of the scene and you wouldn’t know if you didn’t look closely.
Given the digital jiggery-pokery that can be done nowadays I have often wondered if genuine footage of a Buchon could be altered to give it a ‘proper’ Messerschmitt nose (without looking just as artificial as if they had done the whole thing in the computer).
XN923Then there’s the moment in ‘Atonement’ when, to illustrate war-clouds falling on an otherwise idyllic summer in (IIRC) 1937-ish, James McAvoy gazes upwards to see a Lancaster flying overhead.
Odd how completely out of place an error of five years or so makes – to a pedant like me at any rate.
I do think there is a difference between ‘hilarious errors’ (i.e. prop soundtrack to jet aircraft) and incorrect aircraft etc. being used deliberately for cost reasons and because the vast majority of viewers are neither members of the Association Of Rivet Counters, nor officers in Her Majesty’s Roundel Police.
The last example falls squarely into the latter category, as no doubt it was far easier for the makers to use 1-2 seconds of footage of the BBMF’s Lanc than to make a convincing miniature of, for example, a Fairey Hendon.
XN923😀 😀 😀
Talking of which, in Das Boot (my fave, and possibly most accurate war film), when U-96 returns to port they get straffed by T-6s! Which allied aircraft were they meant to be representing?!
Considering the length they went to to create the U Boat you would think they could have sourced better aircraft!
If you believe the film/series followed the book entirely, the T-6s must be playing P-38 Lightnings!!!! 😀
Don’t forget a Harvard also depth-charged the U-Boat at the end of the second episode.
I imagine the issue was that they had spent so much money representing the U-boat, that as the aircraft were not in any way central, a T-6 would do and was going to be much, much cheaper than a P-47 or P-51 (or Catalina for the Straits of Gibraltar sequence).
IMO T-6s played moderately convincing P-47s in A Bridge Too Far – from the side, it was possible to suspend disbelief, but from the front the round cowling didn’t look quite ‘Jug’ enough.
XN923Midway!
I can’t watch that film, so much the ‘stock footage’ annoys me.
Vought Vindicators peel off and begin a torpedo run as TBMs (playing TBDs)
A Corsair overflies a battleship among screaming flak
More Vindicators peel off, this time playing SBDs
Pilots climb into F4Fs, which by the time they have taken off become F6Fs, apart from the fourth one, which is a TBM
Charlton Heston struggles home in a SB2U, which crashes into the deck as a Curtiss SB2C and then bursts into flame as a Grumman F9F (jet!!) – all while playing an SBD!!!
Oh, and the Pearl Harbor crowd go to the bother of getting real A6Ms and then allow them to appear on screen painted green.
Still the greatest ‘hilarious mistake on screen’ has to be letting Michael Bay direct anything.
XN923Royal Navy Blackburn Skuas only had a two-pitch airscrew so the engine tended to overspeed on the way down when dive bombing. I think it was Major R.T. Partridge RM who noted that while it added strain to the engine, there was nothing like a nice screaming prop to put the wind up one’s enemies. It was an effect that was noticed, but like the Stuka, the last thing the Skua needed was any more external protuberances slowing it down.
XN923Obviously.
Can’t you put a different engine in? Wasn’t the Tempest designed for this in the first place?
Tempest MkI – Sabre IV, wing radiators
Tempest Mk II – Centaurus
Tempest Mk III – Griffon, later Sabre VIII, later Fury prototype
Tempest MkIV – Griffon, not built
Tempest Mk V – Sabre II, chin radiator (some tested with annular radiators)
Tempest Mk VI – Sabre V, chin and wing radiator
Have I missed any?
They all looked rather different up front though and only the MkII of the non-Sabre variants would be representative of operational versions
XN923And how are you going to aim against the dark ground below?
Cees
Radar.
You?
XN923Interesting point. My immediate thought is that for attacking the models of B17 that didn’t have guns that trained immediately forwards, German fighter units quickly learned that the best way to attack was head on. Consequently forward firing MGs were added as field mods, and then factory fitted. The point being that as soon as you take a defensive gun away, the enemy learns and exploits it.
However, for night bombers this is perhaps a moot point. I would have thought that a ventral turret would have been the most useful application and the nose turret could have been removed and faired over, as the main attack was going to be below and behind with Schrage Musik and a head on attack at night not really practical.
But then do you get c/g problems from taking out the heavy nose turret which means you might as well leave it there?
XN923I think the Tempest V is probably on a bit of a go-slow as the chances of getting a running Sabre are about nil so it’ll never fly however well it’s restored.
The few Tempest IIs have a better chance as there are running Centauruses around, and the wing has a lot of commonality with the Sea Fury. My guess is that once we see one Tempest, we’ll see several more soon after.
OK, really hankering for a flying Tempest now.
XN923What, no Scimitar?
I’d love to see an F-8 Crusader in action, and an F-101 Voodoo as long as it didn’t try to turn any corners. A MiG 25 or 31 would be very nice indeed thankyou.
The Buccs and Sea Vixens go without saying. And I don’t see any Hunters in anyone’s lists. There are still a few flying, sure, but I’d love to see HHA’s immaculate pair of F58s in their retro European theatre camo! Paint up the HHA Bucc in wraparound green/grey with a Hunter on either wing and I’ll buy a ticket or three.
XN923The Grumman system folded the wings with the gun breeches uppermost.
Thanks, didn’t spot this before.
Incidentally, until late 1940 at the earliest, Ark Royal did not adopt the crash barrier. Therefore every aircraft landing had to be disarmed, folded and sent down the lift before the next aircraft could be landed-on. According to an armourer I spoke to they could do this in a couple of minutes. Needless to say, the American method was much faster and with practice aircraft could be landed on at about ten second intervals. No doubt the accessible breeches of the Grumman wing fold helped speed things up on the deck park too once the barrier was up.
XN923As I understand it – the Me262 wing was “swept” to correct CoG problems, not compressibilty. The 262 was in no way designed to approach high Mach numbers. Also the centre of lift (?) on the wing as we move towards the tip is not moved backwards relative to the leading edge as in a true swept wing.
So despite appearances the Me262 is not a swept swing as we see in the case of the F86. German swept wing research seems to have stayed in the wind tunnel the Me163 excepted, however it also had a swept wing for stability matters rather than hig Mach number problems.
I expect to get a pasting from the Luftwaffe ’46 fanatics, but yes, the swept wing on both the Me262 and the Me163 had nothing whatsoever to do with delaying the onset of compressibility. In the case of the former, the Jumo jet engines were heavier than expected, which meant the wings had to be swept to rectify the c/g. The Me 163… well, have you ever seen a tailless aircraft with straight wings? The sweep gives an equivalent effect to dihedral, and obviously allows the elevators to be behind the c/p where they need to be to allow the aircraft to rotate around its axis. The amount of wing twist and the l/e slots on the Me163 are not conducive to transonic flight. I certainly don’t believe any of the dubious claims that a Me262 exceeded Mach 1, and the Me163 was uncontrollable at Mach 0.84.
However, to give due credit to German engineers, they soon spotted the high speed potential of the configuration they had accidentally discovered and started designing types like the Messerschmitt P.1011 and Focke-Wulf Ta183 which were ‘true’ swept wing designs. IIRC the F-86 wing owed rather a lot to the (built) P.1011 while the MiG-15 drew heavily from the (unbuilt) Ta183.
Although the Meteor was outclassed by the F-86 and MiG-15 by the time of Korea, it was still developed to quite a degree – 600mph+. I believe that if the F.4 had ever met the Me262 in combat the two would have been very closely matched.
XN923Indeed. However, which could be easily serviced and re-armed, when folded?
Serviceability was regarded as integral to the design to Grumman, and an extra to too many British companies. 😉
Fair point. I presume the fact that the Grumman’s wings are canted out more at the leading (lower) edge when folded means the gun bays can be better accessed – though wouldn’t they be upside down?
The Skua was generally thought to be pretty good to rearm and service, though the guns were apparently harder to get to when the wings were folded.
XN923…Which looks remarkably similar to the wing fold used on the Blackburn Skua as early as 1937.
XN923Not that a centrifugal engine would in any way fit under the wings of an Me-262…
Interestingly, the Meteors powered by Metrovick axial-flow turbojets had their engines slung under the wings in pods remarkably similar to those of the Messerschmitt Me262 but they were found to create much more drag than the usual installation of the Rolls Royce (and Halford/DH) engines, despite the latter being rather fatter (if shorter) than the Metrovick.
The Schwalbe had much narrower chord wings than the Meteor though, so I’m not sure they could have been made to accept the centrifugal flow engines.
Sign In
