|
|
Post by turboNZ on Sept 3, 2007 13:37:12 GMT 12
Heya,
Been a while since I've posted, but getting there now.
Hey, Bridgy & I got out "Flyboys" last night.
Is an awesome movie with great graphics (esp with the Zeppelin, 0/400's and Gothas).
The Nieuports stole me though. I will make one some day, I will !!!
Just 2 things which let it down slightly.
First thing is it had the usual typical love story
and the second thing is in a dogfight, there was a scene where the Nieuport runs out of ammo, so he rams the Fokker Dr.1’s upper wing with his undercarriage, taking the wing off while the undercart is still intact.
Now, my belief is that a Fokker Triplane’s top wing would be far stronger than a Nieuport 11’s undercart.
What you reckon?
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 3, 2007 14:39:15 GMT 12
Welcome back, Chris!  I've been thinking about getting a copy of Flyboys myself, so need to get my act together! I would imagine that in a collision like the one you mention, that both 'airplanes' would come of second best.  |
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Sept 3, 2007 20:46:24 GMT 12
If the fabric covering of the top wing on the Fokker had any structural purpose or control wires under it etc it may give? Ripping it would certainly have an aerodynamic effect.  |
|
|
|
Post by turboNZ on Sept 4, 2007 10:56:35 GMT 12
True but this was completely removing the top wing without anything happening to the Nieuport's undercart. I always thought they were fairly flimsy (going by those early movies of biplanes landing on aircraft -carriers)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Sept 4, 2007 11:43:08 GMT 12
yeah, and the triplanes wings are built around a very substantial plywood box spar, to break that would generally require a reasonable amount of force - depends where it hits on each aircraft I suppose...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 5, 2007 15:16:13 GMT 12
I have a copy of the film and I admit I thought it was entertaining and not a bad watch. However the WWI buffs have almost as much to winge about it as the WWII buffs do with Pearl Harbor as far as accuracy goes.
The flying scenes were mostly CGI and totally beyond what the real aircraft could do. As for taking the top wing off, impossible. It would rip the undercart off instead. When i was at Omaka's AHC I was looking at the 'crashed' Richtofen scene. One of the guys from Masterton who builds the Vintage Aviator Co. replicas told me that it had been a real aircraft and a flyer, but it was old and not too good anymore so they decided to make it into the diorama piece. He said to snap the wings was a huge task, more than they even anticipated and they had to use a bulldozer and a crane! So the film is not accurate in that respect.
And the German Air Force only had one red Triplane, Rictofen's. That wasn't the colours of the whole service like in the film!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Sept 5, 2007 16:22:22 GMT 12
I And the German Air Force only had one red Triplane, Rictofen's. . . . and the front-line service life of the DR1 was actually only a few months. Yet according to Hollywood, the Imperial German Air Force operated little else for four years. Another thing that bugs me is that Sopwith, who devised the whole triplane scenario, get little or no historical recognition for their concept which was an instant success and sparked the German designs. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 5, 2007 16:34:11 GMT 12
Indeed. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming Rictofen film fares, as the ftrailer has more than just DR.1's in it so that's a positive sign.
|
|
