ME109 "Barn Find"
Discussion
XJ Flyer said:
Which leaves the questions is a DB engined Buchon closer to a proper 109 than it is a Buchon and which would be worth more a Merlin engined Buchon or a retro fit DB one certainly for the purposes of the Battle of Britain filming.
Given a Buchon is a licensed built Gustav aft of the engine bulkhead, once re-engined with a DB, it effectively becomes a licensed built 109G and pretty much identical to a German built 109 rather than a Buchon.Not quite sure what you're getting at with the 2nd part of the question, as neither a Buchon or a DB engined Buchon (109G) are 'correct' for the BoB period?
aeropilot said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which leaves the questions is a DB engined Buchon closer to a proper 109 than it is a Buchon and which would be worth more a Merlin engined Buchon or a retro fit DB one certainly for the purposes of the Battle of Britain filming.
Given a Buchon is a licensed built Gustav aft of the engine bulkhead, once re-engined with a DB, it effectively becomes a licensed built 109G and pretty much identical to a German built 109 rather than a Buchon.Not quite sure what you're getting at with the 2nd part of the question, as neither a Buchon or a DB engined Buchon (109G) are 'correct' for the BoB period?
XJ Flyer said:
aeropilot said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which leaves the questions is a DB engined Buchon closer to a proper 109 than it is a Buchon and which would be worth more a Merlin engined Buchon or a retro fit DB one certainly for the purposes of the Battle of Britain filming.
Given a Buchon is a licensed built Gustav aft of the engine bulkhead, once re-engined with a DB, it effectively becomes a licensed built 109G and pretty much identical to a German built 109 rather than a Buchon.Not quite sure what you're getting at with the 2nd part of the question, as neither a Buchon or a DB engined Buchon (109G) are 'correct' for the BoB period?
It's just a shame that the ex-BoB film fleet of CASA H.2111's haven't survived in the same numbers as the Buchon's, and there are now none left airworthy since the CAF example fatally crashed some years ago.
XJ Flyer said:
Which leaves the question was the Merlin engine fit in those aircraft a deal breaker from the point of view of realism in the eyes of the audience.Certainly in my case.
In 1969 there were damn all DB601 powered Bf109s available. There are fk all available now. But for you it is a 'deal breaker'?So you don't think the 1969 film should have been made?
You really are a pillock aren't you?
aeropilot said:
XJ Flyer said:
aeropilot said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which leaves the questions is a DB engined Buchon closer to a proper 109 than it is a Buchon and which would be worth more a Merlin engined Buchon or a retro fit DB one certainly for the purposes of the Battle of Britain filming.
Given a Buchon is a licensed built Gustav aft of the engine bulkhead, once re-engined with a DB, it effectively becomes a licensed built 109G and pretty much identical to a German built 109 rather than a Buchon.Not quite sure what you're getting at with the 2nd part of the question, as neither a Buchon or a DB engined Buchon (109G) are 'correct' for the BoB period?
It's just a shame that the ex-BoB film fleet of CASA H.2111's haven't survived in the same numbers as the Buchon's, and there are now none left airworthy since the CAF example fatally crashed some years ago.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which leaves the question was the Merlin engine fit in those aircraft a deal breaker from the point of view of realism in the eyes of the audience.Certainly in my case.
In 1969 there were damn all DB601 powered Bf109s available. There are fk all available now. But for you it is a 'deal breaker'?So you don't think the 1969 film should have been made?
You really are a pillock aren't you?
XJ Flyer said:
If you read my post I said a deal breaker from the point of view of 'realism'.In just the same way that using US tanks to play the role of German ones was in the Battle of the Bulge.As I've said that doesn't mean that it still wasn't an ( extremely ) good film as was usually the case with films made at the time.
I read your post, which was posted after mine. Tell me, exactly how in 1969 you would have represented Bf109s? You really are a pillock aren't you?
Hint? You've crapped every political thread with your weird world view, Kindly do not do so here.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
XJ Flyer said:
If you read my post I said a deal breaker from the point of view of 'realism'.In just the same way that using US tanks to play the role of German ones was in the Battle of the Bulge.As I've said that doesn't mean that it still wasn't an ( extremely ) good film as was usually the case with films made at the time.
I read your post, which was posted after mine. Tell me, exactly how in 1969 you would have represented Bf109s? Convert perfectly good Merlin-powered aircraft to DB merely to satisfy the 0.0001 percent of film watchers who give a toss?
You don't know much about movie-making economics!
What about using Mk IX Spits in the BoB, RC Stukas, filming the same crash from different angles and pretending it was separate incidents, 60s haistyles, etc. it is a movie, you are meant to employ 'suspension of disbelief'.
You do know that Steve McQueen's bike in The Great Escape was a Triumph, right? Not a BMW. Hope this hasn't ruined it for you.
You don't know much about movie-making economics!
What about using Mk IX Spits in the BoB, RC Stukas, filming the same crash from different angles and pretending it was separate incidents, 60s haistyles, etc. it is a movie, you are meant to employ 'suspension of disbelief'.
You do know that Steve McQueen's bike in The Great Escape was a Triumph, right? Not a BMW. Hope this hasn't ruined it for you.
Ayahuasca said:
Convert perfectly good Merlin-powered aircraft to DB merely to satisfy the 0.0001 percent of film watchers who give a toss?
You don't know much about movie-making economics!
What about using Mk IX Spits in the BoB, RC Stukas, filming the same crash from different angles and pretending it was separate incidents, 60s haistyles, etc. it is a movie, you are meant to employ 'suspension of disbelief'.
You do know that Steve McQueen's bike in The Great Escape was a Triumph, right? Not a BMW. Hope this hasn't ruined it for you.
Yes it is obvious that certain parts of any film will need to be compromised for logistical reasons based on what is and what isn't possible.I've just suggested that it 'might' have been possible to have added that extra bit of realism in the case of the actual aerial scenes involving the types being represented and yes MK IX Spit fits the definition of the balance between 'possible' and 'real enough' just as a modified DB powered Buchon would have done 'if' it had been possible,in my personal view.You don't know much about movie-making economics!
What about using Mk IX Spits in the BoB, RC Stukas, filming the same crash from different angles and pretending it was separate incidents, 60s haistyles, etc. it is a movie, you are meant to employ 'suspension of disbelief'.
You do know that Steve McQueen's bike in The Great Escape was a Triumph, right? Not a BMW. Hope this hasn't ruined it for you.
Just as using a stripped Triumph fits the definition of real enough in the case of filming a scene involving stunt riding and jumping a motorbike over a high fence.Or just like certain directors would approach Bovington tank museum for the loan/use of a real Tiger as opposed to using a cheap and easy to obtain T34 made up to look like one.As I said it is all about different veiw points concerning attention to detail as different film directors apply themselves and no need for anyone to get too upset about.
Inverted Merlins don't work that well.
When the Battle of Britain film project began (around 1965) the producers (essentially the James Bond team) assumed that there were plenty of appropriate war surplus aircraft lying around that they could use. Frankly, they were extremely surprised to find that there were actually very few and absolutely none at all from the real Battle of Britain period.
In my opinion they did a most fantastic job in getting together what they did and they were extremely luck that the Spanish Air Force were just, at that moment, looking to dispose of their Buchons and CASA 211 bomber/trainers. Without them, the film was a non-starter.
The film itself was directly responsible for kick starting the warbird preservation movement in Europe and helped establish Duxford as a centre of excellence for the warbird movement.
When the Battle of Britain film project began (around 1965) the producers (essentially the James Bond team) assumed that there were plenty of appropriate war surplus aircraft lying around that they could use. Frankly, they were extremely surprised to find that there were actually very few and absolutely none at all from the real Battle of Britain period.
In my opinion they did a most fantastic job in getting together what they did and they were extremely luck that the Spanish Air Force were just, at that moment, looking to dispose of their Buchons and CASA 211 bomber/trainers. Without them, the film was a non-starter.
The film itself was directly responsible for kick starting the warbird preservation movement in Europe and helped establish Duxford as a centre of excellence for the warbird movement.
perdu said:
The real and ONLY dealbreaker part of BOB was Suzanna Yorke's daft hairdo and most of her dialogue
I still think it did an outstanding job of portraying what went on back when my dad was an armourer at Hawkinge
He loved the film
I think we can forgive Ms York's hairdo and dialogue when you consider the most important part of her role - slinking around in her undies.I still think it did an outstanding job of portraying what went on back when my dad was an armourer at Hawkinge
He loved the film
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which leaves the question was the Merlin engine fit in those aircraft a deal breaker from the point of view of realism in the eyes of the audience.Certainly in my case.
In 1969 there were damn all DB601 powered Bf109s available. There are fk all available now. But for you it is a 'deal breaker'?So you don't think the 1969 film should have been made?
You really are a pillock aren't you?
Did this ruin the films either when they were made or now?
As with the Battle Of Britain the answer, simply, is no.
The films were made with what was available at the time - which wasn't a lot.
Certainly were not a 'deal breaker' in my view. What a daft thing to say.
Halmyre said:
I think we can forgive Ms York's hairdo and dialogue when you consider the most important part of her role - slinking around in her undies.
All WW2 films made in the 1960s seem to suffer from 1960's hair and makeup. A remarkable oversight really, seeing as there were plenty of people around who had perfectly good knowledge of how they looked only 20 years before. Nothing screams 'crap film' more than a supposed German officer with hair over his collar... (I'm thinking of the generally dire fodder on the 'Movies for Men' channel)Simpo Two said:
Halmyre said:
I think we can forgive Ms York's hairdo and dialogue when you consider the most important part of her role - slinking around in her undies.
All WW2 films made in the 1960s seem to suffer from 1960's hair and makeup. A remarkable oversight really, seeing as there were plenty of people around who had perfectly good knowledge of how they looked only 20 years before. Nothing screams 'crap film' more than a supposed German officer with hair over his collar... (I'm thinking of the generally dire fodder on the 'Movies for Men' channel)Yertis said:
Eric Mc said:
Which were not very 1940 either - as pointed out by my mum, who was a 16 year old teenager in 1940.
I don't think that information will spoil my enjoyment of the film, certainly less so than incorrectly engined aircraft.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff