"Flyboys" Flight Realism
ibidi...@hotmail.com
I just saw Flyboys yesterday and I loved the movie in spite of the
inevitable inaccuracies. So my mom loves vintage aviation as well and
was asking me if the aerial combat scenes were at all accurate. I'm
not a pilot, although I've flown a full scale aircraft from takeoff to
landing once and flew remote controlled aircraft for many years, but it
seemed to me like they took some major artitic license in the aerial
combat.
For example: the scene where there are several aircraft diving at the
ground. Prior to hitting the ground they yank the nose up like it was
a Pitts Special. I'm pretty sure this would have caused instant
aircraft disintegration in a real WWI plane. Some scenes where ther
planes are doing hammerheads and vertical climbs seemed to me to be
well beyond the capabilities of any WWI aircraft, except for maybe a
balloon. Then it seemed to me like there was some snap-rolling kindof
stuff going on-- dramatic aileron movements that seem to me like they
would have ripped the wings off the planes. It looked like they were
putting far more stresses on these things than they could handle.
Am I underestimating the capability of these planes or were these
stunts realistic?
John
Raptor
I can't vouch for the aerodynamics except to note that the planes were
very small and light. But it was delightful to see planes that were
effectively powered kites mixing it up. Aspects of the dogfights "felt"
real.
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.
Rob Arndt
"Flyboys" is meant as pure entertainment and an extremely loose telling
of the story of the Escadrille LaFayette.
The aerial shots are fun, but the most unrealistic part for me was the
mixing of machines and timeframe. This was supposed to be largely 1916
and the aircraft were a strange mix of Fokker Dr.Is (1917), Nieuport
11s (1915), Gotha G.IV bombers (1916), a Zeppelin (1915), Se.5a (1917),
and I assume (1917) Handley-Page O/100 bombers. You got German troops
with A7V tanks (1918) on the ground and combinations of old 1915 spike
helmets mixed with latter types. So instead of a clear 1916-1917 story
you never can quite pin down the right time with the right machines.
YES, some of the flight maneuvers in the film were utter BS and would
have disintegrated the machines in flight in real life. But near the
war's end the machines weren't so simple and flimsy. The German
Siemens-Schuckert D.IV and Fokker V.III along with the all-metal
Junkers C.1 could take that kind of abuse- but that was 1918. Germans
also had parachutes by 1917 and their strategic Gotha and
Zeppelin-Staaken R bombers were the largest and most potent around.
Someday I hope to see a WW1 movie set in 1918 with the correct A7V
tanks and Allied types, stormtroopers with MP-18s, the above German a/c
(plus Albatros D.Va/Fokker D.VII/Pfalz D.XII) and the Allied (almost)
equivalents. No one has done that yet to my knowledge. I think "Hell's
Angels" had some Fokker D.VIIs...???
Rob
p.s. The early scene with the Gotha bomber was excellent and true to
life with work on the engine being performed on the wing during flight.
The Gotha G.IVs were known to take a huge amount of punishment and more
were lost to accidents than Allied fighters. The G.IV/V bombers alone
dropped nearly 94 tons of bombs on England in 22 raids by themselves.
BernardZ
ibidi...@hotmail.com says...
I have no seen the movie. However biplanes are particularly mobile that
is why they are still used in aerobatics today.
--
The people that believe that the world is flat are proof that heaps of
time, huge amounts of scientific evidence, plenty of eyewitness
accounts, numerous experts opinion and mountains of photographs are not
enough to convince some people! What is particularly frustrating is
that there are many such people on the Usenet.
Observations of Bernard - No 104
Keith Willshaw
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1160462409.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Someday I hope to see a WW1 movie set in 1918 with the correct A7V
> tanks and Allied types, stormtroopers with MP-18s, the above German a/c
> (plus Albatros D.Va/Fokker D.VII/Pfalz D.XII) and the Allied (almost)
> equivalents. No one has done that yet to my knowledge. I think "Hell's
> Angels" had some Fokker D.VIIs...???
>
The Germans only managed to produce 20 A7V tanks by the end
of the war and it had extremely poor off road capability so
any film with lots of these advancing along the front would be bogus.
Keith
Cubdriver
The consensus seems to be that many of the scenes were flown at speeds
impossible for a WW1 fighter. That's a result of the
computer-generated visuals and of course the need for excitement.
However, it is true that biplanes are wonderfully maneuverable, and
are still used for aerobatic work. When I did 'upset' training, the
plane was a Great Lakes open-cockpit biplane.
I was puzzled by the hammerhead stall. I can't think of what utility
it would be in combat. And I didn't see any Immelmanns; instead,
they'd roll and come at each other inverted, which seemed wrong.
I loved the movie. Oddly, my only complaint was that the dogfights got
a bit repetitious after a while, especially given the difficulty of
identifying the pilots. (The black guy became my favorite, because I
always knew who he was.)
tomcervo
Cubdriver wrote:
> The consensus seems to be that many of the scenes were flown at speeds
> impossible for a WW1 fighter. That's a result of the
> computer-generated visuals and of course the need for excitement.
Remember that opening fight in "The Blue Max"? Stachel looks up and
sees the two planes popping away at each other, each with a single
synchronised gun, on the same plane, at about 80 mph. I have a feeling
THAT'S the most authentic WW1 dogfight, but no audience would sit still
for it.
ibidi...@hotmail.com
> However, it is true that biplanes are wonderfully maneuverable, and
> are still used for aerobatic work. When I did 'upset' training, the
> plane was a Great Lakes open-cockpit biplane.
Yes, but the idea is not so much about whether they are maneuverable
as it is is whether they could handle those kinds of aerobatic stresses
without breaking apart. These are just wooden-framed aircraft for the
most part. I expect your Great Lakes had significantly stronger
framing.
> I was puzzled by the hammerhead stall. I can't think of what utility
> it would be in combat.
I could be wrong, but that may have been when "Cassidy" did his
suicide dive into the Zepplin. So it wouldn't have been during normal
dogfighting.
> And I didn't see any Immelmanns; instead,
> they'd roll and come at each other inverted, which seemed wrong.
According to Wikipedia (http://tinyurl.com/hec6e) Immelmanns aren't
actually used in combat very often. It also mentions (under the entry
for Immelmann, himself) that some aircraft of the day may not have been
capable of the maneuver. However, since we are talking about a
movie that has biplanes on steroids I am also a little surprised that
there were no Immelmanns.
I thought it was pretty cool when one of them (Cassidy?) had a
tripe on his six, he yanked up the nose and knocked off the
tripe's top wing with his landing gear then sprayed the cockpit with
bullets. Maybe impossible as a deliberate act, but it was cool
nonetheless.
> I loved the movie. Oddly, my only complaint was that the dogfights got
> a bit repetitious after a while, especially given the difficulty of
> identifying the pilots. (The black guy became my favorite, because I
> always knew who he was.)
LOL, yes! I had the same problem. Once they had the goggles on it was
nearly impossible to tell them apart unless you memorized their
emblems.
I could pick out the singing guy, too.
But I agree totally-- it was a solid adventure with some historical
and realistic goodies in it. It was a fun movie and I'll be buying the
DVD
for sure. If nothing else I just love seeing the old planes.
John
ibidi...@hotmail.com
> The aerial shots are fun, but the most unrealistic part for me was the
> mixing of machines and timeframe. This was supposed to be largely 1916
Thanks for the historical analysis of this Rob. I would expect some
mixing
of older and newer types of the equipment you mention here, but there
are
a few things that strike me as being highly improbable combinations. I
suspect that, in a way, actually adds to the realism. Except that it
was
probably a little too over-the-top to make sense.
> Germans also had parachutes by 1917
I noticed that when one German pilot fell out of his plane to his
death... I
was thinking that the Germans were using chutes by then. I understand
some countries didn't issue them out of fear that the pilots would bail
the
first chance they got and lose the planes.
> Someday I hope to see a WW1 movie set in 1918 with the correct A7V
> tanks and Allied types, stormtroopers with MP-18s, the above German a/c
> (plus Albatros D.Va/Fokker D.VII/Pfalz D.XII) and the Allied (almost)
> equivalents. No one has done that yet to my knowledge. I think "Hell's
> Angels" had some Fokker D.VIIs...???
Well, the good news is that with the excellent CGI animation we have
now
we are getting closer to that reality.
John
Ad absurdum per aspera
aircraft design and fabrication, everybody was still learning as they
went along. Several types definitely had structural limitations --
some of which were dynamic rather than static and took some doubtless
excessively interesting operational experience to discover. The
doped-fabric skin, as well as structures, could be a weak point on
some, in particular parts of the flight envelope.
Exacerbating all these issues was the headlong rush to make progress in
one of those eras when things were evolving very fast (compare the
early 50s in jets, for instance). Having the latest plane could give
you a big edge in combat, assuming you weren't the one to discover a
structural limitation or some fatal crock in the handling qualities.
Poor workmanship and inferior materials and supplies were reputed to
plague the Central Powers side in addition to these factors as the war
wore on, and of course one of the eternal problems, unsuspected battle
damage, could sneak up and bite anybody.
Relative climb and dive performance (as well as the possibility of
breaking the plane in the latter) and turn performance varied a lot
with the type and therefore so did tactics.
One non-exert's opinions, worth what you paid if your connect time is
cheap,
--Joe
Rob Arndt
Point well taken Keith... but I did not literally imply a tank war...
just that the A7V seen in "Flyboys" with the German troops in France
was equally bogus for 1916/17!!!
A 1918 movie would surely have them, albeit not very many. There is
this misconception that the Germans had only the big A7V and copied
Allied tanks. This is not true as German tank development started in
1912 with the Austrian Oberleutnant Gunther Burstyn who applied for a
German patent in Berlin for his "Motor-Vehicle Gun" (patent # 252,815
of 2/28/12). It would have had a weight of 5 tons and length of 3.5
meters with tracks, armored hull, and a remarkable rotating turret with
gun. Climbing and trench-crossing were to be accomplished with spring
loaded roller-booms fore and aft. This vehicle fits the description of
what the Brits would later call a "tank" but Germany did not develop
it.
Still, they experimented with the Bremer-Wagen (experiments ordered in
July 1915) which was developed into the "Marienwagen" as a tracked
transport vehicle. These were actually used for towing AA and AT guns.
A further Bremen-Wagen III was designed, but not developed.
After that, an order came in 1916 for a dedicated armored cross-country
vehicle which the Durkopp Werke tried to develop. It was called the
Dur-Wagen. Its 80 hp motor proved too weak to support a fully armored
body so work continued on with the Treffas-Wagen armored tractor which
was a dead-end and cancelled for development of the A7V.
The first chassis of the A7V was tested in April 1917, shown to
Ministry officials by May 1917, and then the Kaiser in June 1917. The
first fully operational A7V was completed in Oct 1917 and while the
initial order of 38 was reduced to 20, the tank first saw combat on
March 21, 1918 near St. Quentin with just 5 tanks. As with any
ontroduction of a new weapon one tank broke down prematurely and two
during the battle. The other two did well but no clear evaluation could
be made.From April-October 1918 the three A7V units saw small actions
with really no success against either Allied tanks or frequent
break-downs.
Evaluation:
Lost in combat: 1, Number 527 at Reims
Captured by Allies: 6, Numbers 504, 506, 528, 529, 542, 562
Stripped: 2, Numbers 526, 561
Blown-up: 1, Number 560
Abandoned: 1, Number 502
Survived w/German Army: 9, Numbers 501, 505, 507, 525, 540,541, 543,
563, 564
Totals= 20
By the end of the war the Germans were developing the 120 ton Reibe
K-Wagen land cruiser with two 650 hp DB marine engines, 4x 77mm main
guns + 4 MGs + 2 flamethrowers, and an 18 man crew! Only one prototype
was almost finished with 5 on order.
The Germans also had the 3 man crewed light tanks L.K.1 and L.K.2 with
a 37mm cannon. Several were completed along with many under
construction. None saw action but were sold to Sweden postwar.
And finally, the world's first conventional tank design was ordered in
Oct 1918- the assault tank "Oberschlesien". This featured the driver up
front, seperated fighting and rear engine compartments, and raised 57mm
central weapon in a rotating turret with a weight of 19 tons and Argus
Type AS 3 aircraft engine of 180 hp. Crew of 5 and addition of two
sub-turret MGs located fore and aft. None were completed before the
surrender, although 13 German firms had alternate tank proposals on the
table.
They were also two more heavy tank proposals, "Horch" and
"Benz-Brauner".
So had the war continued the Allies would have faced the A7V, K-Wagen,
L.K.1 and 2, plus the Oberscheisien.
Rob
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> And finally, the world's first conventional tank design was ordered in
> Oct 1918- the assault tank "Oberschlesien". This featured the driver up
> front, seperated fighting and rear engine compartments, and raised 57mm
> central weapon in a rotating turret with a weight of 19 tons and Argus
> Type AS 3 aircraft engine of 180 hp. Crew of 5 and addition of two
> sub-turret MGs located fore and aft. None were completed before the
> surrender, although 13 German firms had alternate tank proposals on the
> table.
>
The French Renault FT-17 was the first 'conventional' tank.
It had a 37mm gun in a rotating turret , the driver up front
and the engine at the back, almost 3000 were built by
the end of the war
> They were also two more heavy tank proposals, "Horch" and
> "Benz-Brauner".
>
> So had the war continued the Allies would have faced the A7V, K-Wagen,
> L.K.1 and 2, plus the Oberscheisien.
Trouble is German industry couldnt deliver those tanks, the factories
in Britain and France were churning out thousands of them.
Keith
Glenn Dowdy
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eggqia$nfe$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1160499910.4...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>>
>> So had the war continued the Allies would have faced the A7V, K-Wagen,
>> L.K.1 and 2, plus the Oberscheisien.
>
> Trouble is German industry couldnt deliver those tanks, the factories
> in Britain and France were churning out thousands of them.
>
So the Allies would have been facing what, five prototypes? How hard could
that be?
Glenn D.
Dan
<snip>
>
> So had the war continued the Allies would have faced the A7V, K-Wagen,
> L.K.1 and 2, plus the Oberscheisien.
>
> Rob
>
Darn the luck, war ended to soon, nicht wahr? Not only did the
Germans invent world war but they also invented losing world wars too.
The were so good at it they repeated the surrender in 1945 before all
those wunder weapons could be loosed.
In any event your conclusion is probably wrong. Had WW1 continued the
Germans wouldn't have had the money to spend on machines. Germany was
bankrupt and the populace was starving.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan
Rob Arndt
In October 1918 the orders for the L.K. tanks were 1,400 alone. The
other heavies to ultra-heavy K-Wagens were to be prototypes for trials.
I am not saying that German industry could meet those demands for all 5
tanks; however, it seems that they were going to try for the light
tanks first plus probably the Oberscheisien in the long run as the
K-Wagen was the "Maus" of the day and the A7V was a waste.
Germany also didn't have to rush production into the 1000s like the
Allies because they were the ones holding occupied territory. The tanks
had not dislodged them even by Nov 1918. Germany was not defeated on
the battlefield on the day of Armistice, no matter who quoted what
about the future. German soldiers and tanks returned to Germany with
all weapons and crews.
BTW, my post only really concerned the misconceptions of German WW1
tank development. Think of the scenario if Germany had built tanks in
1914 under Burstyn's patent...
Rob
Dan
Why shouldn't they? The Armistice never said they couldn't and the
surrender hadn't yet been signed. They had to go home. No matter how you
try to spin it Germany WAS losing ground on the battlefield and in the
air. Germany had been bled dry economically, in terms of man power,
resources and morale. Germany was soundly defeated. The fact U.S.
soldiers were successfully used fluidly as opposed to in trenches as the
Allies and Axis had been doing should tell you how hopeless the German
situation in the field really was.
>
> BTW, my post only really concerned the misconceptions of German WW1
> tank development. Think of the scenario if Germany had built tanks in
> 1914 under Burstyn's patent...
>
> Rob
>
Or if they hadn't started the war in the first place. Amazing the
"what ifs" isn't it?
Rob Arndt
Dan,
Technically, the war started with the Serb assassination of Austrian
Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo on June 28,1914. Perhaps if
Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip hadn't shot, then the war wouldn't
have started. It was Austria-Hungary that declared war on Serbia on
July 28, 1914 as the Russians mobilized to help their fellow Slavs and
France had a pact with Russia. Germany backed Austria-Hungary but
didn't declare war on France until Aug 3, 1914... invading Belgium per
the German strategy on Aug 4th.
But all of this is really irrelevent historically speaking. Germany was
unified in the 1860s and quickly defeated France in the Franco-Prussian
war. An arms race began with Britain and Germany over their Fleets
while Germany became the dominate land superpower by 1900. World War I
was inevitable no matter who did what. Europe was a powderkeg of
alliances, treaties, and pacts. Gavrilo Princip was merely the spark
that set it all off.
Everyone marched proudly off to war in Europe and yet Germany seems to
have to bear the full brunt of the responsibilty.
BTW Dan, if the Allies hadn't have been so strict with the unfair
Treaty of Versailles and actually tried to help the Weimar Govt... then
possibly Hitler would not have been elected and WW2 would not have
started. Ponder that fact.
Rob
Keith Willshaw
#
>
> Germany also didn't have to rush production into the 1000s like the
> Allies because they were the ones holding occupied territory. The tanks
> had not dislodged them even by Nov 1918. Germany was not defeated on
> the battlefield on the day of Armistice, no matter who quoted what
> about the future. German soldiers and tanks returned to Germany with
> all weapons and crews.
>
Germany WAS defeated.
The last credible line of defence, the Hindenburg line had been overrun
in a day, the allies were advancing on all fronts and the army
was on the brink of collapse.
The navy was in full scale mutiny as a result of orders being prepared
for a sortie that was clearly suicidal. The General Staff informed the
German government that unless an armistice was signed the collapse
of the army was just days away.
That is defeat.
Keith
> Berlin, October 3rd.
> To The Imperial Chancellor:
> In these circumstances it is imperative to stop the fighting
> in order to spare the German people and their allies
>unnecessary sacrifices. Every day of delay costs thousands
> of brave soldiers their lives.
> VON HINDENBURG
Dan
And fools like Berchtoldt who could have stopped it and who wanted
war go blameless in your simplification.
>
> Everyone marched proudly off to war in Europe and yet Germany seems to
> have to bear the full brunt of the responsibilty.
Could be because Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire ceased to exist
leaving Germany the only major Axis power left. As for "everyone"
marching proudly off to war Serbia sure didn't and neither did the
neutral countries over run by the belligerents.
>
> BTW Dan, if the Allies hadn't have been so strict with the unfair
> Treaty of Versailles and actually tried to help the Weimar Govt... then
> possibly Hitler would not have been elected and WW2 would not have
> started. Ponder that fact.
>
> Rob
>
Maybe, maybe not, we will never know. The fact remains Hitler did
rise to power and no one but the Germans are to blame for that.
tomcervo
ibidi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Cubdriver wrote:
>
> > However, it is true that biplanes are wonderfully maneuverable, and
> > are still used for aerobatic work. When I did 'upset' training, the
> > plane was a Great Lakes open-cockpit biplane.
>
> Yes, but the idea is not so much about whether they are maneuverable
> as it is is whether they could handle those kinds of aerobatic stresses
> without breaking apart. These are just wooden-framed aircraft for the
> most part. I expect your Great Lakes had significantly stronger
> framing.
That marvelous "Ghosts of the Great War" has several works pictures of
workers standing on completed wings--eight men standing and sitting on
the middle wing of a Fokker triplane, or the wing of a D.8.
There's the story as well of a propellor on a balancing point. A
cigarette paper was put on one end of the blade and it eventually
tipped. The workmanship of that time only seems crude.
BernardZ
ibidi...@hotmail.com says...
> > Germans also had parachutes by 1917
>
> I noticed that when one German pilot fell out of his plane to his
> death... I
> was thinking that the Germans were using chutes by then.
>
The Germans were only starting to use chutes at the end of the war.
--
When we try to see the future we are like the traveller trying to figure
out where we are going by studying where we have been. It often does not
work for him either.
Observations of Bernard - No 105
ibidi...@hotmail.com
> > Cubdriver wrote:
>
> That marvelous "Ghosts of the Great War" has several works pictures of
> workers standing on completed wings--eight men standing and sitting on
> the middle wing of a Fokker triplane, or the wing of a D.8.
> There's the story as well of a propellor on a balancing point. A
> cigarette paper was put on one end of the blade and it eventually
> tipped. The workmanship of that time only seems crude.
That's interesting-- I'm going to have to check that book out. Thanks
for
mentioning it!
John