ME109 "Barn Find"

Author
Discussion

aeropilot

34,302 posts

226 months

Monday 24th November 2014
quotequote all
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

5,526 posts

129 months

Monday 24th November 2014
quotequote all
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?
We know that the BoB movie crew used Buchons anyway.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.While the effort in trying to source DB engined variants,if possible,would at least have been well appreciated if and where at all possible.In just the same way as that engine fit is always ( rightly ) well received and appreciated by airshow audiences regardless of variant.

aeropilot

34,302 posts

226 months

Monday 24th November 2014
quotequote all
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?
We know that the BoB movie crew used Buchons anyway.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.While the effort in trying to source DB engined variants,if possible,would at least have been well appreciated if and where at all possible.In just the same way as that engine fit is always ( rightly ) well received and appreciated by airshow audiences regardless of variant.
Back in 1968/9 is certainely wasn't a dealbreaker, without those Spanish AF Buchon's and CASA H.2111's en masse the film wouldn't have been the spectacle it is. There were no flyable DB engined 109's around in 1968/9 and none even close to flyable back then.
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

3,220 posts

183 months

Monday 24th November 2014
quotequote all
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

5,526 posts

129 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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?
We know that the BoB movie crew used Buchons anyway.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.While the effort in trying to source DB engined variants,if possible,would at least have been well appreciated if and where at all possible.In just the same way as that engine fit is always ( rightly ) well received and appreciated by airshow audiences regardless of variant.
Back in 1968/9 is certainely wasn't a dealbreaker, without those Spanish AF Buchon's and CASA H.2111's en masse the film wouldn't have been the spectacle it is. There were no flyable DB engined 109's around in 1968/9 and none even close to flyable back then.
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.
That seems to reflect my view of the film over the years. 'Deal breaker' was only meant in the sense 'if only' these had the DB engine fit.In the impossibility of that the unavoidable use of non DB powered '109' variants was obviously the best and only alternative,all things being relative just making the aerial parts of that filming a 9/10 instead of 10/10.The unavailability of large amounts of WW2 era German hardware also sadly had the same effect in reducing the relative potential of similar post war epic war films like Battle of the Bulge etc.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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?
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.

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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.

perdu

4,884 posts

198 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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?
In this case we'd be talking about converting at least 'some' of the ones used to DB power.Which I'd guess were in greater supply then than later.Bearing in mind that,unlike your comments,even now there are certainly still more than none in running condition.Which admittedly was a big ask but just maybe possible.Other than that,with the exception of that small inconsistency,like the Battle of the Bulge,a great film and no reason to throw your toys out of the pram.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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.

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.



Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
Would it be possible to fit a Buchon's Merlin upside down to make it look more like a BF109G?

scratchchin

Eric Mc

121,788 posts

264 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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.

Halmyre

11,148 posts

138 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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.

Eric Mc

121,788 posts

264 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
Which were not very 1940 either - as pointed out by my mum, who was a 16 year old teenager in 1940.

Yertis

18,016 posts

265 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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.

fatboy69

9,371 posts

186 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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?
Not all of the Formula 1 cars in the film Grand Prix were actually Formula 1 cars & not all of the Ferraris & Porsches in the film Le Mans were what they seemed.

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.

Simpo Two

85,151 posts

264 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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)

Halmyre

11,148 posts

138 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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)
'Mosquito Squadron' - one of the worst offenders in that regard. And an honourable mention for Shirley MacLaine in "Two Mules for Sister Sara".

Eric Mc

121,788 posts

264 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
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.
Apparently, a very 1960s electric doorbell shows up in one scene too - although I've never noticed it. If I had I would have stormed out of the cinema - a very indignant 10 year old.