So Nigger was as much a part of Gibson’s life as the squadron’s. If as you imply there are other reasons for changing the name apart from PC, I would be interested to read them.

And I’m sure a moving and heart felt relationship with his dog can be portrayed regardless of whatever name is used, the reasons for changing the name has been spelt out a number of times above, the UK has 50M possible viewers, the USA has 250M, with a large volume of those in the USA likely to react far differently to that word that most in the UK do.

The important historical thing is getting the story in front of many new people as possible, and if the backers consider the name is a financial risk then its their money, their decision, simply boycott the movie if its a big issue for you to cope with, but those who truly learn about this issue through the movie will probably seek further information and stumble over the “controversy” of the dogs name being changed “if” it matters.

The producers are clearly taking the view that there is more risk of “controversy” in “using” it, as against changing and “not” using it.

Other than a few committed enthusiasts in the UK, how many in the UK General Public will really boycott or complain about it?, as against how many African Americans would avoid the movie simply on the basis of hearing that word associated with the film, (without even waiting to understand its historical context)

Clearly if the dogs name didn’t carry the “risk” of creating “controversy” for the film makers, it wouldn’t be being changed or this thread debating it.

But in anycase, the decisions been made by those putting their money forward to re-tell this story to new generations, and I’m sorry but running the original 1955 version around the cinema circuit is not going to happen, and if it did it would not reach the volume of people that a good re-make will, and in my view that’s the really important thing.

As others have said, its being made as a commercial entertainment device, not an historical documentary, and like Tolkiens stories, there will be changes to suit the film production needs.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Colin also acquired the former RAFM fuselage section of CASA 2111 which was used in fuselage shots during the film. It departed the U.K a long time ago for use in a ‘Heinkel’ project in Austria.

From the http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/ website and consisting of the CASA fuselage being married to the remains of the He-111P2 WrkNo 5883 recovered by the RAF from Norway in 1974.

Google doesn’t find much information about that recovery or exactly what was recovered, I recall the aero magazines advising of it at the time, and I recall assuming that a relatively intact example had been found/recovered?

However it seems this recovery was the Heinkel involved in the battle with the RN FAM Museum’s Skua also recovered in 1974 from Norway, and apparently recovered at the same time the Skua was recovered.

If so, the recovered remains were largely the rear fuselage section and shattered wing remains?, with much of the wreckage still apparently existing in the mountain site still today?

http://home.online.no/~oela/page3.html

Edit – Apparantly not?

Consulting the Geoff Goodall Directory reports the 1974 recovery as thus?

forced landing on frozen lake Norway, later sank c42
Norwegian AF Museum, Gardermoen AB .73
(incomplete wreck recov. ex lake .73)
RAF Museum Store, RAF Cardington: wreck stored
Imperial War Museum, Duxford: wreck stored
sold to private owner in UK
private collector, Austria 00/03
(rear fuse. & components stored Austria 03, planned
composite static rest. project using cockpit section &
cwntre fuse. sections of CASA-2.111B B.2I-20 used in
filming of movie Battle of Britain in 68)
(also has been rep. as He 111P-2 Werke Nr. 5883)

http://www.goodall.com.au/warbirds-directory-v6/heinkel.pdf

So I really am still un-the-wiser as to how much was really recovered and where in Norway it was recovered from in 1974, Geoff’s directory suggests the recovery in 1974 was an underwater lake recovery?, which clearly isn’t the one associated with the Skua site and photos above?

Google did however find this one, far more “intact” and still sitting there today in the mountains of Norway smiles

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2013/07/grotli-ghost-town-norway-wrecked-heinkel-bomber-replica/

Now it could be married together with that ex BoB replica cockpit section at East Kirby…….

regards

Mark Pilkington

I take great delight in linking you to this RT –

http://www.oshkosh365.org/saarchive/eaa_issues/magazine_195805.pdf

Must be a slightly later modification.

Smiles, claimed as possibly the first aircraft built in America by a woman, it clearly is a S**** Playboy in more ways than one, smiles.

The article mentions the intentional change in the fuselage decking to accommodate a teardrop canopy.

Interestingly the article also indicates the builder used modified wings from a Ryan ST3 rather than new built wings to plans, although I cant find reference to confirm if Ray S**** original design was also based on the Ryan wing design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S****_Playboy

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Hi Karl, thank you for highlighting those links. I had not been able to locate those or anything similar. I have sent you a PM in response to your extremely kind offer. I imagine those manuals are pretty rare.

Cheers,
TEC

Thats fine, (although I’m no relation to Karl smiles)

The PDF’s on their way, I havent dismantled the book to scan them so you will probably want to print the pages off as every second page PDF is upside down.

I think they probably are rare (I paid $49 for this one back 30 years ago), although to be fair over 10,000 of the C-47 one were probably published for Uncle Sam, most probably got tossed rather than being kept with the airframes? although interestingly the inside page of my C-47 Manual has KA800 written in pencil along with CZF/M. which I wonder may be an RAF Serial and perhaps post war callsign?

We have ex-RAF aircraft from the SEAC region with FZ’, KG’, DT’ and KN’ serial prefixes, but I have no idea if KA800 is a valid RAF serial let alone one allocated to a C-47 that made it to Australia.

I hope the email information is of use?, attached is a photo of the embossed cover and the front page with the penned ownership notes of Harold R Dymond who I assume was a LAME with ANA, AA, DAP and TAA over his time.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

An item in the local newspaper stated that a Casa 2.111 will be coming to Rotterdam for display. Where it will be displayed is not known yet but the aircraft in question is currently in the depot of the Milit�rhistorisches Museum in Berlin. The article also stated that it is one of only four remaining Casa 2.111 bombers but I seriously doubt that to be correct. 😉

According to the Preserved Axis Aircraft site http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/

Its one of only “four” CASA2.111’s left in Germany with one each at Auto und Technik Museum Sinsheim, Deutches Museum,Oberschlei�heim, Luftwaffen Museum and Flugausstellung, Hermeskiel, as against the sole He-111 in Germany under restoration at the Technical Museum in Berlin.

We are fortunate that at least 1 He-111 survives in both Germany and the UK, given their shared links to the type.

The same site lists 11 CASAs surviving in various states, most are complete and on display in Europe and despite comments above, I can only see two listed against the Flying Heritage Collection in Washington.

With only five complete and original He-111’s surviving worldwide, the CASA2.111’s provide a useful representation of the type, despite their post war construction and use of merlin powerplants.

Its great to see so many have survived through their starring role in the 1960’s BoB movie, a milestone in the aircraft preservation movement from a number of views, including the survival of their Spanish stablemates the merlin powered Hispano HA-1112 Buchon, of which more than 30 survive in various forms and gise, with or without their merlins, but most are also representing their more famous German wartime Me-109 ancestors, despite a healthy number of those surviving in various states too.

Without the BoB film’s promotion of their availability, I suspect most of either type would not survive today, ignoring the boost to interest in aircraft preservation that movie provided across the board.

Its also good to see at least one of those CASA’s can be displayed in Germany in its true Spanish identity, while still evidencing and preserving its design heritage back to its famous wartime ancestor, while the example in France and of course in Madrid in Spain also retain original Spanish markings.

That’s 3 of the 11 CASA survivors preserved representing their own type, while of course the only reason the others survive and are preserved are due to their inherent design relationship with the wartime German He-111, and their acquisition and display by various military museums to represent that type and history.

I personally consider the He-111 to be an important element of the air war over Europe during WW2 and particularly the BoB, and think the UK and IWM should be retaining their CASA indefinitely and be displaying it in German markings representing that heritage, despite its merlins, on that same basis.

Given the direct relevance to the BoB, having a second albeit “representative” displayed example of the He-111 type in the UK seems more than justified, and it seems an important type to represent in the IWM collection.

Its not that much different to post war examples of B-25s, or P-51s being preserved and presented as their earlier wartime siblings, or for that matter a post war French mark VII Lancaster being preserved and presented as a wartime British mark I, as three of the 17 Lancaster survivors happily do.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Doesn’t your answer prove the point that situation, pilot etc are important factors into any engagement. Going just on stats the Harrier had a 100% record, so is the ‘better’ aircraft in that situation…

No I think it just demonstrates the value of superior ordinance. and stand off capability offered by the AIM 9L, and I suspect if the armament had swapped sides the perceived aircraft and pilot “advantages” would have had little impact in the result swinging the other way.

Ending my reply to Spiteful and making a more general comment to the various replies above:

We have lots of “pointless” threads/posts and debates occur in this forum and I usually avoid entering those that I consider to be pointless.

But we seem to have an increasing habit of some members entering debates they see as pointless, pointing them out as “pointless” and then becoming the main and regular contributors/participants?

That in itself seems rather pointless?, and causes many such threads to take on the look of a childhood sandpit.

In regards to the OPs original question, Military fighter aircraft designs evolve to achieve superiority over their adversaries, and range, ordinance, speed, manoeuvrability, climb, ceiling and performance at various heights are all the criteria usually specified by an Air Force Order , or a designs specification, and it would seem that process is visible across the entire 100 years since the commencement of WWI, even if obsolete types have had various successes against expectations, while others like the Fairy Battle and Defiant have evidenced what should have been expected.

It would seem quite viable to compare the performance specifications of contemporary aircraft and consider/debate their relative merits, and likely outcomes in a grown up fashion.

As has been pointed out earlier this was the reason behind the US evaluation of captured Japanese aircraft and the resulting implemented designs to “combat” the advantages and “exploit” the weaknesses.

It clearly why “mark 1” Spitfires were not still in front line RAF service at the end of WW2 or being delivered fresh in boxes into Burma for burial, and instead later marks with ordinance, engine and airframe (and therefore performance) developments had been ordered into service.

While crew capability is clearly a very important element in the actual result in the air, that’s not required to be considered in the OPs quite valid and reasonable question to be able to compare performance statistics of a nominated group of aircraft.

The only complication in the debate is defining and containing the nominated group of aircraft to be compared.

With all the rules the Webmaster has about excessive quoting, or advertising or defaming others, maybe there’s a need for simple basic one that says “play nicely” in the “sandpit”.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

How about a P-40M flying around registered as a P-40N?

https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detail&aircrafttype=p-40&dataindex=1

I thought it was a P40E flying around registered and re-engined as a P40F smiles

regards

Mark Pilkington

Don’t hold your breath…………

Its a very important interwar Airliner type that’s not represented by any significant portions or remains, let alone a sole survivor.

I note from the facebook site that the proponents have had some involvement in the most recent Vimy Reproduction, and I’m not sure a flying HP42 reproduction is being considered or is a viable outcome?, its a much bigger and much more complex project than those, I suspect the costs and engineering issues would be substantial to achieve such an outcome, even if the Heritage Lottery was open to participating?

HP42
H 27′ / 8M
WS 130′ / 39M
L 92′ / 28M

for comparison the Vimy dimensions are:
H 16′ / 5M
WS 68′ / 21M
L 43′ / 13M

A Full Scale Mockup along the lines of the Yorkshire Halifax (although its perhaps more a hybrid reproduction than an FSM), or Irish Boeing Clipper would seem quite viable, but again a very BIG in terms of eventually housing it.

for comparison the HP 56 Halifax dimensions are:
H 21′ / 6M
WS 104′ / 32M
L 71′ / 22M

for comparison the Short Stirling dimensions are:
H 23′ / 7M
WS 99′ / 30M
L 87′ / 27M

I put the Halifax up as a comparison of the relative size of such a project because although the Yorkshire project benefited from the substantial original portion of rear fuselage and the ability to adapt the Hastings wing into a usable hybrid Halifax outcome, those outcomes still needed enthusiasm and commitment to the dream, long before F for Friday was ever rolled out.

Starting perhaps with even less usable structure, (even if the RAFM hand over their tail section for reference or even “incorporation”?) is the Short Stirling project, yet here is a similar sized extinct type which has strong support for its resurrection, either as a static metal reproduction or simply an externally correct composite FSM with fibreglass and original structure mixed together if viable.

Again without enthusiasm, and a dream and of course the volunteer skills and resources to try and achieve it, such outcomes will never proceed, let alone achieve any outcome.

I would hope the people behind this dream can garner some support from us at this forum, and deliver some tangible display or outcome of this extinct type?

There is a wonderful fibreglass FSM DH89 Rapide on external display in the UK, and the Qantas Founders has a DH50, and DH61 Giant Moth FSM and are planning an eventual DH86 Express FSM to fill in some of these missing interwar types, they don’t quite attract the same support as the wartime types, but are historically important just the same to see them preserved, or presented somewhere in the world?, and an FSM is a viable way to do so when original structures are not available.

So I’m willing to “hold my breath”, and hold my “cold water”, if it helps an outcome proceed?, surely if we on this forum wont encourage it?, who will?

regards

Mark Pilkington